391493

GPIXXX10.1177/1368430210391493BurgerandCaldwellGroupProcesses&IntergroupRelations

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Article

G P I R

When opportunity knocks: The effect of a perceived unique opportunity on compliance

Jerry M. Burger,1 and David F. Caldwell2

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 1 10 TheAuthor(s)2011 Reprintsandpermission:sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI:10.1177/1368430210391493 gpir.sagepub.com

Abstract Fourstudiesexaminedtheeffectof aperceiveduniqueopportunityoncompliance.Inallfourstudies, participantswhobelievedtheyhadanopportunityavailabletofewothersweremorelikelytoagree witharequestthanparticipantswhobelievedtheopportunitywaswidelyavailableorparticipantswho receivednoopportunityinformation.Weattributetheeffecttoawidelyheldheuristicthatoneshould takeadvantageof uniqueopportunities.Studyresultsdemonstratedthatpeoplerespondtoaperceived uniqueopportunityevenwhensuppliesarenotlimitedandwhentheopportunityistheresultof pure chance.Theresultsof amediationanalysissupportedtheinterpretationthattheperceiveduniqueness of theopportunityunderliestheeffect. Keywords compliance,heuristics,opportunity,scarcity Paperreceivedxxx;acceptedxxx. The advantage of heuristic processing is that it allows us to navigate through our days without loses the prize as surely as if he had failed. investingunnecessarycognitiveefforteachtime (WilliamJames) weencounterafamiliarsituation.Thedisadvantage is that we occasionally apply heuristics in When asked a simple favor, such as lending a inappropriatesituationsandmaymakeourselves co-worker$10orbuyingabarof chocolatefor a fund-raiser, most of us respond with little or nohesitation.Ratherthaninvestingthetimeand 1Departmentof Psychology,SantaClaraUniversity efforttopondertheplusesandminusesof each 2LeaveySchoolof Business,SantaClaraUniversity option,wetendtorelyonwhatresearchersrefer toasheuristicprocessing(Cialdini&Goldstein, Corresponding author: JerryM.Burger,Departmentof Psychology,SantaClara 2004). That is, over the course of a lifetime, University,500ElCaminoReal,SantaClara, we have learned various heuristics, or rules of CA95053,USA. thumb,thatweapplyinanear-automaticfashion. Email:jburger@scu.edu Hewhorefusestoembraceauniqueopportunity

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations more likely to buy the tickets than if I believe manypeoplehaveaccesstothissameprice.Note that a perceived unique opportunity can affect compliance independently of either a perceived shortsupplyoraperceivedtimelimit.Iammore likelytobuytheticketsintheaboveexampleeven if thereareplentyof ticketsavailableandevenif thereisnoloomingtimelimittomakemypurchase.Inshort,weareproposingawidelyused heuristic that affects compliance above and beyondtheeffectsof limitedsuppliesorlimited time demonstrated in previous investigations. Attempts to exploit this heuristic can be seen whensalespeopleandmarketersproclaimaproduct is not available to the public or that the recipient of a piece of mail has been specially selected to receive the offer inside. We conductedfourstudiestoexaminetheeffectof the uniqueopportunityheuristiconcompliance.

vulnerable to exploitation by individuals who understand how these heuristics work (Cialdini, 2009;Levine,2003). Agreatdealof researchhasexaminedtheuse of heuristics in compliance situations (Burger, 2007).Forexample,mostpeoplerelyonaruleof thumbthatsaysweagreetorequestsfromfriends. However, researchers find that individuals also are more likely to agree to a request when it comes from someone who simply acts like a friend. Participants in one study complied at higherratesaftertheyengagedinashortdialogue (ascomparedtoamonologue)withtherequester (Dolinski, Nawrat, & Rudak, 2001). Presumably thetwo-waydialogueresembledthewayfriends interact, and the participants responded to the requestasif itcamefromafriend. Wewereinterestedincomplianceandheuristicsbasedonthescarcityprinciple,i.e.,thenotion that the less available an opportunity, the more valuable it appears (Worchel, Lee, & Adewole, 1975). Researchers have identified two ways the scarcity principle may come into play in compliance situations (Cialdini, 2009). First, a product canbedescribedasbeinginshortsupply.Wesee this principle in operation when a sale is said to continue only while supplies last. Second, the scarcity principle can affect compliance when an opportunityisdescribedasavailableforalimited amountof time.Weseeexamplesof thisuseof theprinciplewhensalepricesarelimitedtothis weekendonly.Becausescareobjectsareseenas morevaluable,theconsumerismorelikelytopurchasetheproductunderthesecircumstancesthan whennoinformationaboutashortsupplyortime limitisgiven. The present set of studies was designed to examineanotherwaythescarcityprinciplemight affectcompliance.Weproposethatmostadults in this culture have come to rely on a rule of thumbthatsaysoneshouldtakeadvantageof a uniqueopportunity.Specifically,therulesaysthat we should take advantage of opportunities that few others have access to. For example, if I believeIcanpurchaseticketstoaplayatalow price that is unavailable to most people, I am

Study 1
Thefirststudywasdesignedtodemonstratethe basic unique opportunity effect. We led some participants to believe that they were among a relativelysmallpercentageof peopletoreceivean opportunity. We expected these individuals to agreetotherequestmoreoftenthanparticipants not given this impression. We also included a conditioninwhichparticipantswereselectedto receive the opportunity, but their selection did notplacetheminaparticularlyuniquecategory. Thiscommonopportunityconditionallowsusto rule out explanations based on having a short interaction with the requester or simply being selected.Wepredictedanincreaseincompliance onlywhenparticipantsbelievedtheiropportunity wasrelativelyunique.

Method

Participants One hundred and fifty three undergraduates(73men,80women)wererandomly selected from a phone directory of undergraduate students at a private liberal arts university.

Burger and Caldwell Procedure Experimenterstelephonedrandomly selected participants from the undergraduate directory.Studentswhodidnotanswerwerenot called back. In all conditions, the experimenter introducedhimself orherself asastudentatthe universityworkingonaresearchprojectwithtwo faculty members. The experimenter explained thatheorshewaslookingforparticipantsfora 15-minute study, and that students who participatedwouldbeeligibleforarafflefora$25gift certificateatthecampusbookstore.Theexperimentersaidthattheoddsof winningthecertificatewereapproximately1in30. Participantswererandomlyassignedtooneof three conditions. In the unique condition, the experimentersaid,Wecantuseeveryoneinthe study. So could I ask you two short questions first?First,whichforeignlanguagedidyoustudy inhighschool?Second,howmanybrothersand sistersdoyouhave?Regardlessof howparticipantsrespondedtothetwoquestions,theexperimenteractedasif theanswersmatchedwhathe or she was looking for. The experimenter said, Thatsperfect.Wearelookingforstudentswho took (language mentioned by student) in high school and who have (no/one/two/more than two)siblings. Theexperimenteraskedparticipantsassigned to the common condition two different questions.Theseparticipantswereasked,First,how old are you? Second, you are a (male/female), correct?Regardlessof theparticipantsanswers, the experimenter said, Thats perfect. We are looking for a (participants gender) student betweentheagesof 18and22.Approximately half of the undergraduates at the university wherethestudywasconductedaremaleandhalf female.Moreover,allbutaverysmallpercentage are between the ages of 18 and 22. In fact, no participantcontactedinthisconditionwasolder than22.Thus,participantsinthecommonconditionshouldhaverealizedthattheyweregivenan opportunitythatvirtuallyeveryotherundergraduatetheirgenderalsoqualifiedfor. Participantsassignedtothecontrolcondition received no questions. At this point all participantsweretold:Ivegotseveraltimesnextweek

3 when you can participate. Again, it only takes about15minutes,andyoucouldwina$25gift certificate. Are you interested? Experimenters waiteduntiltheyreceivedaclearyesornoanswer, butdidnotrepeattherequestortrytopersuade the participant. If participants agreed to the request, they were scheduled for one of several experimentalsessionsthefollowingweek. When participants arrived at the session, theyweregivenblankindexcardsandaskedto put their names and e-mail addresses on the card. The experimenter explained that they wouldbeusedfortheraffleattheendof the session. The cards also allowed the experimentertorecordwhichparticipantsshowedup for the session. The experimenter passed out andcollectedashortquestionnaireunrelatedto thepresentstudy.Thentheexperimenterdrew one of the index cards from a basket and awardeda$25giftcertificatetothewinnerof theraffle.

Results and discussion

Acompliancescorewascalculatedforeachparticipant,with2=verbalandbehavioralcompliance(agreedoverthephoneandshowedup),1= verbal compliance only, 0 = neither verbal nor behavioralcompliance.Themeanscoresforeach condition are shown in Table 1. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect across the threeconditions,F(2,150)=3.90,p=.02,partial 2=.05.Asshowninthetable,participantsinthe uniqueconditioncompliedatahigherratethan participantsineitherthecontrolcondition(p=.01, LSD test) or the common condition (p = .03, LSDtest).Thecommonconditionandthecontrolconditiondidnotdiffersignificantly(p=.76, LSDtest).1 Thefindingsareentirelyinlinewithourpredictions. Participants were more likely to agree withtherequestwhenledtobelievetheyhadan opportunitythatrelativelyfewothershad. Moreover, there was no reason for participants in the unique opportunity condition to believethattheirchancesof participatingorwinning the gift certificate were more scarce than

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations thatthestudywasconcernedwiththedevelopment of a new personality scale. Participants weretoldtheywouldcompletethenewscaleand thensomeadditionalmeasures.Theexperimenter handed participants the first scale, which was identified at the top of the page as the Interpersonal Orientation Test. The scale was a bogus test comprised of 40 general descriptive statements. TesttakerswereinstructedtomarkTrueof False on each item to indicate whether the statement described them. When completed, the experimentercollectedthebogustestandgavetheparticipant a second short personality scale to complete.Theexperimentersaidheorshewould gradethefirsttestandpretendedtogradethetest whiletheparticipantworkedonthesecondtest. The experimenter, blind to condition to this point,checkedasheettoseewhethertheparticipanthadbeenrandomlyassignedtotheunique, commonorcontrolcondition.Intheuniquecondition,aftercollectingthesecondtest,theexperimentersaid,Werelookingforpeoplewhoscore between21and30onthenewtest.Theexperimentershowedtheparticipantwhatappearedto beacomputerprintoutthatindicatedthenumber of previous test takers with scores falling into variouscategories.Theexperimentercontinued, Itsprettyuncommon.Onlyabout10percentof thepeoplewhotakethetestfallinthatrange.But you are one of those people. To enhance the message, the lines on the printout for scores between21and30(towardthemiddleof thedistribution)werecircledwithaboldblackmarker, and10.3%waswrittennexttothecircle. In the common condition, the experimenter said, Were looking for people who score between21and30onthenewtest.Theexperimenteragainheldupwhatappearedtobeaprintout of the test score distribution and said, Its not that uncommon. About 75 percent of the peoplewhotakethetestfallinthatrange.And youareoneof thosepeople.Thelinesforscores between 21 and 30 again were circled, and 74.9%waswrittennexttothecircle.Participants assigned to the control condition received no feedbackabouttheirscoreonthefirsttest.

Table 1. Meancompliancescore Control .57 (.70) Common .61 (.60) Unique .90 (.67)

Note.Standarddeviationsinparentheses

theywereintheothertwoconditions.Thus,the increase in compliance appears to reflect the uniqueopportunityheuristic.

Study 2
Study2wasdesignedtoreplicatetheeffectdemonstratedinthefirststudyusingadifferentprocedureformanipulatingperceiveduniquenessof theopportunity.Althoughitseemsfairtoassume thatparticipantsinStudy1wereabletoroughly calculate the extent to which their opportunity was unique, Study 2 participants were provided unambiguousfigures.Thestudywasalsodesigned toruleoutapossiblealternativeexplanationfor theStudy1results.Itispossiblethatparticipants intheuniqueopportunityconditionfeltanobligationtohelptherequesterthatwasnotexperiencedbyparticipantsintheothertwoconditions. That is, participants led to believe few people qualified for the study may have felt that the requesterespeciallyneededthemtoparticipatein theinvestigation.Thus,thehigherratesof complianceinthisconditioncouldhavebeenaidedby a desire to help the requester. To rule out this interpretation, we included statements in the requestersscriptthatmadeitcleartherequester didnotparticularlyneedtheparticipanttoagree withtherequest.

Method

Participants One hundred and twenty-four undergraduates(40men,84women)participated inthestudyinexchangeforclasscredit. Procedure Participantstookpartintheexperimentoneatatime.Theexperimenterexplained

Burger and Caldwell In all conditions, the experimenter then Table 2. Percentandnumberof participants agreeingtotherequest presentedtherequest:

Wed like to ask you to come back another 64.3% 87.5% timetofilloutafewmorepersonalityscales. 54.0% (23/42) (27/42) (35/40) Itwouldtakeabout45minutes.Wecantgive you any more class credit, but in exchange for your time, you would be entered into a Results and discussion rafflefora$25giftcertificateforthecampus Thepercentagesof participantswhoagreedtothe bookstore. request in each condition are shown in Table 2. To prevent participants from thinking that the There was an overall effect for compliance rate experimenter was especially in need of their across the three conditions, 2 (2, N = 124) = participation,theexperimenterthentoldpartici- 10.72,p=.006,=.29.Specificcellcomparisons pants in all three conditions, Actually, I think revealedsignificantlyhigherratesof compliancein we probably have plenty of people doing the the unique condition than in either the control secondpartalready.Butitcanthurttogetafew condition,2(1,N=82)=9.08,p=.003,=.33, orthecommoncondition,2(1,N=82)=4.79, extras. Theexperimenterthenhandedthepartici- p=.03,=.24.Thecommonconditionandthe pant a sheet asking for some basic demo- controlconditiondidnotdifferfromoneanother, graphicinformationandaformidentifiedasa 2(1,N=84)=.44,p=.50. The findings parallel those from the first Volunteer Sheetandsaid,Afteryoufinishwith the last form, could you read this, fill it out, study.Participantswhobelievedtheywereamong and turn it in? The experimenter explained theoneintenwhoqualifiedfortheopportunity thatheorshewouldbeleavingnow,butthat were more likely to agree to the request than the participant should put the completed thosewhobelievedtheywereamongthethreein demographicformandthevolunteersheetin fourwhoqualified.Moreover,therequestermade alargeenvelopeonanearbytable.Theenve- itcleartoparticipantsinallconditionsthatheor lopeappearedtocontainseveralpreviouspar- shehadnoparticularneedfortheparticipantto ticipants forms. The Volunteer Sheet repeated agreewiththerequest.Thus,theincreaseincomthe request to complete some additional per- plianceappearstobeduetotriggeringaunique sonality scales and the opportunity to be opportunity heuristic rather than an increased enteredintoaraffleforthegiftcertificate.The senseof obligationtohelptherequester. sheet explained that participants would be e-mailed by the experimenter to arrange parStudy 3 ticipation times. Participants were asked to check one of two spaces indicating that they Theresultsof thefirsttwostudiesprovideconeitherwouldorwouldnotliketoparticipatein sistentsupportforthenotionthatindividualsare morelikelytocomplywitharequestwhenthey thenextphaseof datacollection. Theexperimenterclosedthedoorasheorshe perceiveittobeauniqueopportunity.Weargue lefttheroom.Whentheparticipantlefttheroom that people respond to a perceived opportunity a few minutes later, he or she was met by the byapplyingausefulheuristicinasemi-automatic experimenterwhoaskedtheparticipanttoreturn fashion.Tothatend,Study3wasdesignedtorule to the room for debriefing. The experimenter outanalternativeinterpretationof theeffect,i.e., explainedthattherewasnosecondphaseof data that being selected for a unique opportunity collection and that all participants would be mightleadindividualstofeeltheyhavesomehow earned or are entitled to the opportunity. It is enteredintotheraffle.

Control

Common

Unique

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations instructed to evaluate each of the 12 pictured productsusingthescaleitemsandweretoldthat theexperimenterwouldthendisplayexamplesof thelastthreeitemstobeevaluated.Whenparticipantscompletedtheirevaluationsof the12items pictured in the binder, the experimenter set the lastthreeitemsonthetableoneatatimeforthe participant to evaluate. The last item evaluated wasaninsulatedtravelmugwhichretailedfor$15 inthecampusbookstore. When all the evaluations were complete, the experimenter thanked the participant and announcedthesessionwasover.Beforetheparticipantcouldrisetoleave,theexperimentersaid, One more thing before you go. We have a bunchof thesetravelmugsleftoverfroman earlierversionof thisstudy.Sowedecidedto offerthemforsaletostudentswhoparticipate inthisstudy.Theycost$15atthebookstore, butweresellingthematthepricewepaidfor them.Becauseweboughtinbulkandbecause weweredoingastudy,theychargedusonly$5 permug. In the unique condition, the experimenter then said,Sowedecidedtodoarandomdrawing. Theexperimenterheldupabowlwithsixfolded pieces of paper in it. The experimenter said, Oneof thesesixslipsof paperhasastaronit. The participant was asked to select one of the slipsfromthebowlandunfoldit.Intruth,each of thesixpiecesof paperhadastaronit.After the participant made his or her selection, the experimenter said, You selected the star. That makesyoueligibleforoneof thetravelmugsat thereducedprice. Participantsinthecommonconditionhearda similar presentation. However, there were only twopiecesof paperinthebowl,bothof which had a star. Participants in the control condition weretoldnothingaboutarandomdrawing,and werethuslefttobelievethatallparticipantshad an opportunity to purchase a travel mug at the reducedprice.Inallconditions,theexperimenter endedtherequestbyasking,Wouldyoubeinterestedinbuyingone?

possiblethatparticipantsintheuniqueopportunity conditions in Studies 1 and 2 felt they had earnedtheiropportunitybyvirtueof possessing a special characteristic. Of course, an objective analysisof thesituationwouldrevealthattaking one language over another or having a certain number of siblings falls short of a personal achievement. Similarly, having a middle-of-thedistribution score on an unknown personality variablethattheexperimenterhappenstowantto knowmoreaboutisnotmuchof anaccomplishment.Nonetheless,itispossiblethatsomeparticipantsintheseconditionsfeltasmallsenseof achievement or entitlement, and this reaction conceivablycouldhaveincreasedtheiragreement withtherequest. Toexplorethispossibility,wecreatedasituation in which participants could clearly see that theuniqueopportunitywastheresultof chance andhadnothingtodowithpersonalcharacteristics.Wealsowantedtoreplicatetheeffectusinga differentkindof request.Inadditiontoincreasingtherateatwhichpeopledonatetheirtimeand money,socialinfluenceresearchersoftenattempt toincreasetheextenttowhichindividualspurchase products.Thus,forStudy3wecreateasituation thatresembledasalespitch.

Participants Eighty undergraduates (29 male, 51female)participatedinthestudyinexchange forclasscredit. Procedure Participants took part in the study oneatatime.Theexperimenterexplainedthatthe studywasconcernedwithconsumersinitialreactionstoproducts,andthattheparticipantwould be asked to provide evaluations for 15 different products commonly marketed on college campuses.Theparticipantwashandedabinderthat containedcolorphotographsof 12productssold inthecampusbookstore,eachof whichincluded the universitys logo and/or name. The experimenteralsohandedtheparticipantanevaluation formwithspacesforevaluatingeachproducton sevensemanticdifferentialscales.Participantswere

Method

Burger and Caldwell Participantswhoexpressedaninterestinpurchasingoneof thetravelmugsweretoldthatthey would be sent information via e-mail on when andwheretheycouldbuythemug.Theseparticipantswerelatersentane-mailmessageexplaining that they could purchase the mug in the psychology department office any time during thefollowingweek.Whentheyarrivedtobuythe travel mug, participants were asked their name, handed a mug, and told that the experimenters decidedtogivethemugsawayatnocharge.
Table 3. Percentandnumberof participants purchasingmugs Control 8.0% (2/25) Common 3.4% (1/29)

Unique 26.9% (7/26)

Results and discussion

Wefirstcomparedthepercentageof participants ineachconditionwhosaidtheywereinterestedin purchasingamug.Nosignificantdifferencewas foundonthismeasure,2(2,N=80)=.38,p= .83.Whenthenexaminedthepercentagesof participantsineachconditionwhoactuallycameto theofficetopurchaseatravelmug.Thisanalysis revealed a statistically significant effect, 2 (2, N = 80)=7.58,p=.02,=.31.Asshownin Table 3, the pattern of results is similar to that foundinthefirsttwostudies.Participantsinthe unique condition were more likely to pick up a mugthanparticipantsineitherthecommoncondition or the control condition. A comparison betweentheuniqueconditionandtheothertwo conditionscombinedrevealedasignificantdifference, 2 (1, N = 80) = 5.50, p = .02, = .26. Specific cell comparisons revealed a statistically significantdifferencebetweentheuniqueconditionandthecommoncondition,2(1,N=55)= 4.34,p=.04,=.28,butthecomparisonbetween the unique condition and the control condition fellshortof statisticalsignificance,2(1,N=51) =1.97,p=.16.Thefindingscomplementthose fromthefirsttwostudies.Inaddition,theysuggestthatindividualsrespondtoauniqueopportunityevenwhenthatopportunitycametothem entirelyasaresultof chance. Itisinterestingtonotethattheuniqueopportunity effect appeared in this study when we examinedtheparticipantsactualbehaviorbutnot when examining the percentage of participants

whomerelysaidtheywereinterestedinpurchasingamug.Thispatterncontrastswiththeonewe identified in Study 1 in which both verbal and behavioraldatacontributedtotheeffect.Wecan only speculate about the reasons for this differencebetweenwhatourStudy3participantssaid and what they did. Because they were sitting acrossthetablefromtherequester(ascompared totalkingoverthephoneinStudy1),itmayhave beendifficultforsomeparticipantstosaynoeven whentheydidnotwanttopurchaseamug.Atany rate, the findings illustrate the importance of examiningactualbehaviorincomplianceresearch wheneverpossible.

Study 4
Study4wasdesignedtoallowamediationanalysisof ourinterpretationfortheuniqueopportunityeffectfoundineachof thefirstthreestudies. Thatis,wearearguingthatthereasonindividuals complyathigherratesinouruniqueopportunity conditionsisthattheyperceivetherequestasan opportunityavailabletofewotherpeople.If this perceptionisthereasonfortheirincreasedlikelihoodof agreeingwiththerequest,thenwewould expect two outcomes (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First,participantsinauniqueopportunityconditionwillrecognizethattheyarebeingpresented withanoffernotavailabletoothers.Second,the uniqueopportunityeffect(highercompliancein the unique opportunity condition than in the other conditions) will not be found when the effectof thisperceptionisremoved. Conducting an analysis for this mediation requires that we measure participants perceptionsconcerningtheuniquenessof theiropportunity. However, measuring these perceptions is difficult or impossible when using the type of

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations equipment at the discounted price and make a couple of trips to use the equipment. Thus, if theyboughttheequipment,theycouldnotbuy otherthingstheymightwant.Participantsthen indicated the likelihood that they would purchasethesnowboardpackage(1=VeryUnlikely, 11 = Very Likely) and the extent that they believedtheoffertobuythesnowboardatadiscount seemed to be a unique opportunity for themthatfewotherpeoplehad(1=VeryLittle, 11=AGreatDeal).

proceduresweemployedinthefirstthreestudies. We therefore asked participants in Study 4 to imagine themselves in one of three scenarios. Onescenarioprovidedparticipantswithaunique opportunity, one described a more common opportunity,andonereferredtoawidelyavailableopportunity.Participantsindicatedtheextent towhichtheywouldlikelytakeadvantageof the opportunity and the extent to which they perceivedthesituationasauniqueopportunitynot availabletoothers.

Participants OnehundredandtenMBAstudents (72 men, 38 women) participated in the Asignificanteffectwasfoundacrossconditions for the likelihood that participants would purstudyaspartof anin-classexercise. chase the equipment, F(2,107) = 3.77, p = .03, partial2=.07.ParticipantsintheuniqueopporProcedure Questionnairescontainingoneof tunity condition (M = 6.97, SD = 2.80) were the three scenarios were randomly distributed morelikelytotakeadvantageof theopportunity amongparticipantsduringclasstime.Wewanted than participants in the common opportunity thescenariostofocusexclusivelyontheunique- (M=5.86,SD=3.47)orcontrolcondition(M= nessof theopportunity,andsoweremovedthe 5.00,SD=2.88).Apost hocmultiplecomparisons requesterfromthehypotheticalsituations.Each testrevealedasignificantdifferencebetweenthe of the scenarios asked participants to imagine unique opportunity and common opportunity thattheyveryinterestedinbuyinganexpensive conditions(p=.01).Theextenttowhichparticisnowboardingpackage(about$1200)that,asfar pantsbelievedtheyreceivedauniqueopportunity as anybody knows, never goes on sale. Briefly, that few others have followed a similar pattern, participantsintheuniqueconditionreadthata F(2,107) = 2.67, p = .07. Participants in the friendsunclerunsaskiresortand,althoughshe unique condition (M = 8.17, SD = 2.19) were cant do this for everyone or too often, the morelikelytoseethesituationasauniqueopporfriendsaysshecangetthesnowboardingequip- tunitythanwereparticipantsinthecommonconmentfortheparticipantat40percentoff retail. dition (M = 7.03, SD = 3.29) or the control Participants in the common condition read condition(M=6.74,SD=2.74). aboutfindingaco-oplimitedtocertainpeople, Wecombinedthecommonandcontrolparticisuchasunionmembers,teachers,veterans,and pantsintooneconditionforthemediationanalycreditunionmembers.Thelistof eligiblemem- sis.Inthisway,wecouldcomparethosewhoshow bersalsoincludescollegestudents.Evenfactor- theincreasedcomplianceeffectagainstthosewho inginthe$50membershipfeeandtheshipping did not. As shown in Figure 1, the significant fees, the snowboarding package can be pur- relationbetweenconditionandlikelihoodof purchasedat40percentoff theretailprice.Control chasedropstonon-significancewhenthepercepgroup participants read about the equipment tion of uniqueness is included in the equation. goingonsaleatalargesportinggoodsstorefor Themagnitudeof thedifferenceinthetwocoef40percentoff. ficients(.230vs..146)indicatesasignificantmediAll participants were told to imagine that ationduetotheextenttowhichparticipantssaw theyhadsavedupjustenoughmoneytobuythe the situation as an opportunity few others had

Method

Results and discussion

Burger and Caldwell

.230* (.146)

Opportunity to Purchase 2 = Unique 1 = Control

Likelihood of Purchase

.214* Belief that Offer is Unique

.425*** (.394***)

Figure 1. Opportunitytopurchaseandlikelihoodof purchasemediatedbybelief thatofferisunique.

*p<.05***P<.001

(Sobelz=2.02,p=.04).Themagnitudeof the coefficientsindicatesthatapproximately36%of the effect of condition on the decision to purchase is indirect and is mediated through the belief abouttheuniquenessof theoffer.

General discussion
Across four studies using a variety of procedures and requests, we found that individuals aremorelikelytocomplywitharequestwhen they believe the request represents a unique opportunitynotavailabletomostpeople.The effect appears to operate independently of a limitedsupplyeffectandisnottheresultof a perceivedneedtohelptherequester.Moreover, theeffectisfoundevenwhentheopportunityis determined purely by chance, suggesting that individuals are not responding to a sense that they have somehow earned the opportunity. Rather, the unique opportunity effect appears to be the result of heuristic processing, i.e., peoplerelyingonaruleof thumbthatsaysthey should grab an opportunity available to few others. The research thus expands our understanding of how the scarcity principle comes into play in compliance situations by demonstratingthatatargetedopportunity,evenif itis notlimitedintimeoravailability,mayincrease compliance. Finally, we produced the unique opportunity effect when examining different kinds of compliance behaviors. The effect appears when asking individuals to volunteer

theirtimeaswellaswhenaskingthemtopurchaseaproduct. Onequestionnotaddressedinthisresearchis whypeopleinourcultureoftenrelyontheunique opportunityheuristic.Thatis,whyhavewecome to believe that an opportunity that few others haveismorevaluablethananopportunityavailabletomostpeople?Onepossibilityisthatthe heuristicisrelatedtoasenseof distinctiveness.In individualistic cultures like the United States wheretheresearchwasconducted,self-esteemis often tied to personal achievements that distinguishtheindividualfromthecrowd(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Tafarodi, Marshall, & Katsura, 2004).Onewaytoreachthisgoalof distinctiveness is to take advantage of opportunities not availabletoothersandtherebyattainsomething aboveandbeyondwhatmostpeoplehave.If that isthecase,thenwecanspeculatethattheunique opportunity effect demonstrated in the studies reportedheremightnotbefoundinculturesthat place less of an emphasis on individuality and personalachievement. Although we found consistent evidence for relianceonauniqueopportunityheuristicacross four studies, it is reasonable to speculate about somelimitationsof theeffect.Forexample,peoplemaynotrelyonheuristicswhenthecostof agreeingwitharequestislargeorwhenencouragedtospendamomenttoconsidertherequest beforeresponding.Itisalsonotclearhowunique theopportunityhastobebeforetheheuristicis activated. We found no increase in compliance

10 whenparticipantswereledtobelievetheirselectionputtheminacategorywithapproximately 50%(Studies1and3)or75%(Study2)of the population.Mostlikely,thedegreeof uniqueness requiredtoproducetheeffectwillvarywiththe typeof requestandthecostof thecompliance. Finally,likeotherrulesof thumbpeopleuse whenfacedwithrequests,theuniqueopportunity heuristicunfortunatelycanalsoleaveindividuals vulnerabletothosewhoknowhowtoexploitit. Everyday examples abound. We see offers for veterans only, members only, seniors only, etc. Unsolicitedmailtellsusweareselected,qualified, preapproved,andsoon.Wehearthatabargainis not available to the public, to those outside the company,instores,etc.Aswithothertechniques, thebestdefensemaybeawarenessof howand whythesetacticswork. Notes
ThanksareextendedtoJennaAbeyta,JoshuaFedder, andCorinneKirmilfortheirassistancewiththedata collection. 1. We found a similar pattern when examining the percentageof participantsineachconditionwho verballyagreedtotherequestandthepercentage of participantswhoshowedupattheexperimental session. For the verbal measure, we found a significanteffectacrossthethreeconditions,2(2, N = 153) = 8.08, p = .03, = .23. The unique conditionwassignificantlyhigherthanthecontrol condition,2(1,N=102)=6.84,p=.01,=.26, but the difference between the unique condition andthecommonconditionfellshortof statistical significance,2(1,N=102)=2.71,p=.10.For the behavior measure, the effect across the three conditionsalsofellshortof statisticalsignificance, 2(2,N=153)=3.40,p=.18.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual,strategic,andstatisticalconsiderations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,11731182. Burger,J.M.(2007).Fleetingattractionandcompliance to requests. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress(pp.155166). NewYork,NY:PsychologyPress. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.).Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon. Cialdini,R.B.,&Goldstein,N.J.(2004).Socialinfluence:Complianceandconformity.Annual Review of Psychology,55,591621. Dolinski, D., Nawrat, N., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 13951406. Levine, R. (2003). The power of persuasion: How were bought and sold.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley&Sons. Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Cultureandthe self:Implicationsforcognition,emotion,andmotivation.Psychological Review,50,370396. Tafarodi,R.W.,Marshall,T.C.,&Katsura,H.(2004). Standing out in Canada and Japan. Journalof Personality,72,785814. Worchel,S.,Lee,J.,&Adewole,A.(1975).Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,906914.

Biographical notes jerry m. burgerisaProfessorof Psychologyat SantaClaraUniversity. is the Stephen and Patricia Schott Professor of Management in the Leavey Schoolof BusinessatSantaClaraUniversity.
david f. caldwell