The perception of being watched can serve as a powerful intervention to modify human behavior. A field experiment investigated this phenomenon regarding hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom.

In the study conducted by Pfattheicher et al. (2018), researchers observed the behavior of 354 women. A poster was placed above the soap dispenser featuring the text: “Hands spread pathogens. Hand washing protects”. The visual cue displayed above this message was manipulated to test the effect of social pressure.

In the control condition, three stars were displayed above the text. Under this condition, 71.9% of individuals utilized the soap dispenser.

In the experimental condition, the stars were replaced by a pictogram of watching eyes. The presence of these eyes significantly increased compliance to 83.3%. Statistical analysis (Odds Ratio: 1.95) indicates that the probability of hand washing was significantly higher when the watching eyes were present.

The study further identified a moderator effect regarding the duration of the restroom visit. The “watching eyes” effect was statistically significant only for individuals who spent a relatively short time in the restroom (approximately 2 minutes). The authors suggest that in these shorter visits—potentially associated with urination only—the intrinsic motivation to wash hands is lower, making the external cue of the eyes more effective in enforcing social norms.

These findings suggest that simple, low-cost “nudges” utilizing cues of social presence can effectively improve hygiene behavior in public settings.

Reference: Pfattheicher, S., Strauch, C., Diefenbacher, S., & Schnuerch, R. (2018). A field study on watching eyes and hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(4), 188–194.

__________________

Studies (just a small selection):

Bateson, M., Callow, L., Holmes, J. R., Redmond Roche, M. L., & Nettle, D. (2013). Do images of ‘watching eyes’ induce behaviour that is more pro-social or more normative? A field experiment on littering. PloS one, 8(12), e82055.

Conty, L., George, N., & Hietanen, J. K. (2016). Watching Eyes effects: When others meet the self. Consciousness and cognition, 45, 184-197.

Dear, K., Dutton, K., & Fox, E. (2019). Do ‘watching eyes’ influence antisocial behavior? A systematic review & meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 269-280.

Nettle, D., Harper, Z., Kidson, A., Stone, R., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Bateson, M. (2013). The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: it’s not how much you give, it’s being seen to give something. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(1), 35-40.

Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self‐awareness. European journal of social psychology, 45(5), 560-566.

Pfattheicher, S., Strauch, C., Diefenbacher, S., & Schnuerch, R. (2018). A field study on watching eyes and hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(4), 188–194.

That well-intentioned screen time limit you set for your child? It might actually be making screens more desirable. This video dives into the science behind this paradox and reveals what actually works.

The insights are based on a fascinating study by Michal Maimaran and Yuval Salant called “The effect of limited availability on children’s consumption, engagement, and choice behavior”.

The revealing LEGO Experiment from the study:

Researchers gave two groups of four- to five-year-old children LEGOs to play with.

– Group 1 was given a 10-minute time limit.

– Group 2 was given no time limit at all.

The stunning result: The children with the time limit played significantly longer. They averaged 494 seconds of playtime, while the group with no limit played for only 390 seconds. The restriction itself increased their engagement and desire for the activity.

So, what are better strategies than constant time limits? This video explores alternatives grounded in psychology:

Curate Their Environment: Proactively manage which devices and apps are available in the first place.

Foster Positive Alternatives: Create engaging offline activities that naturally compete with screen time.

Use Natural Consequences: Link the end of screen time to a logical next event rather than an arbitrary timer.

Collaborate on a Plan: Create a media usage schedule with your child to foster autonomy and self-regulation.

Source:
Maimaran, M., & Salant, Y. (2019). The effect of limited availability on children’s consumption, engagement, and choice behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(1), 72-79.

How many people cross at red lights when there are no cars to be seen for miles around?
And above all: How much are they influenced by the “negative” example of other people? A German research team secretly observed people at traffic lights in Munich to find out…

__________________

Studies (only a small selection selection):

Bergquist, M., Helferich, M., Thiel, M., Hellquist, S. B., Skipor, S., Ubianuju, W., & Ejelöv, E. (2023). Are broken windows spreading? Evaluating the robustness and strengths of the cross-norm effect using replications and a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88, 102027.

Keuschnigg, M., & Wolbring, T. (2012). Physical Disorder, Social Capital, and Norm Violation.

Keuschnigg, M., & Wolbring, T. (2015). Disorder, social capital, and norm violation: Three field experiments on the broken windows thesis. Rationality and Society, 27(1), 96-126.

Mullen, B., Copper, C., & Driskell, J. E. (1990). Jaywalking as a function of model behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 320-330.

Volker, B. (2017). Revisiting broken windows: The role of neighborhood and individual characteristics in reaction to disorder cues. Sociological Science, 4, 528–551. https:// doi.org/10.15195/v4.a22

Wolbring, T., & Keuschnigg, M. (2015, July). Feldexperimente in den Sozialwissenschaften. In Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 222-250). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

Robert Cialdini certainly ranks among the most influential psychologists in the world. His studies have significantly shaped the research field of social psychology and his books on influencing techniques have been bought millions of times. All the more exciting is the fact that one of his most famous studies has only recently been replicated (Bergquist et al. 2021). With moderate success…

__________________

Studies (only small selection):

Bergquist, M., Blumenschein, P., Karinti, P., Köhler, J., Ramos, É. M. S., Rödström, J., & Ejelöv, E. (2021). Replicating the focus theory of normative conduct as tested by Cialdini et al.(1990). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101573.

Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1-8.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55, 591-621.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). Academic Press.

Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012.

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(1), 104.

Even small language variations can have a big impact on the behavior of our fellow human beings. So we should pay close attention to our formulations in communication …

Studies (small sample only):

Cimpian, A., Arce, H. M. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological science, 18(4), 314-316.

Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 17(5), 644-650.

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Biggers, D. R., & Hendry, D. J. (2016). A field experiment shows that subtle linguistic cues might not affect voter behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(26), 7112-7117.

Rhodes, M., Leslie, S. J., Yee, K. M., & Saunders, K. (2018). Subtle Linguistic Cues Increase Girls’ Engagement in Science. Psychological Science, 0956797618823670.

Psychologists (especially social psychologists) have been researching manipulation techniques for decades. It is becoming increasingly apparent that sometimes it only takes a single phrase to increase the likelihood that another person will comply with our request. The following techniques seem to be particularly effective:

1. “Evoking freedom” technique

2. “This is my only request” technique.

3. Legitimization of a paltry contribution technique.

4. “You will probably refuse…” technique

5. Foot-in-the-mouth technique

Since these manipulation techniques can be easily incorporated into everyday speech and many people do this automatically anyway, they are difficult for us to recognize. Nevertheless, as is often the case, the more familiar we are with these techniques, the better we can protect ourselves against them.

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Andrews, K. R., Carpenter, C. J., Shaw, A. S., & Boster, F. J. (2008). The legitimization of paltry favors effect: A review and meta-analysis. Communication Reports, 21(2), 59-69.

Bolkan, S., & Rains, S. A. (2017). The legitimization of paltry contributions as a compliance-gaining technique: A meta-analysis testing three explanations. Communication Research, 44(7), 976-996.

Carpenter, C. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique. Communication Studies, 64(1), 6-17.

Guéguen, N. (2016). “You will probably refuse, but…”: When activating reactance in a single sentence increases compliance with a request. Polish Psychological Bulletin.

Dolinski, D., Grzyb, T., Olejnik, J., Prusakowski, S., & Urban, K. (2005). Let’s Dialogue About Penny: Effectiveness of Dialogue Involvement and Legitimizing Paltry Contribution Techniques 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1150-1170.

Fointiat, V. (2000). “Foot-in-the-Mouth” versus “Door-in-the-Face” requests. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 264-266.

Grzyb, T., & Doliński, D. (2017). “This is my only request”–using the ‘Omega’strategy to boost the success of charity drives. European Review of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 181-185.

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(14), 1185-1196.

Farley, S. D., Kelly, J., Singh, S., Thornton Jr, C., & Young, T. (2019). “Free to Say No”: Evoking freedom increased compliance in two field experiments. The Journal of social psychology, 159(4), 482-489.

_________

About: Social Psychological Influence Techniques

Social psychological influence techniques are behaviors aimed at influencing the opinions or actions of others. They are used in many areas of daily life, from sales promotion to political campaigning. Some of the most well-known social psychological influence techniques are the foot-in-the-door technique, the door-in-the-face technique, the low-ball technique, and the that’s-not-all technique.

The “foot-in-the-door” technique is based on the assumption that people are more willing to fulfill a larger request after they have already fulfilled a smaller request. A well-known study that examined this technique is that of Freedman and Fraser (1966). In this study, the researchers first asked for a small favor (e.g., to hang a small sign) before asking for a larger favor (e.g., huge sign in the front yard). The results showed that those who had initially performed the small favor were more willing to perform the larger favor as well.

The door-in-the-face technique is based on the assumption that people are more willing to fulfill a smaller request after refusing a larger request. A well-known study that examined this technique is that of Cialdini et al. (1975). In this study, researchers first asked for a very large favor (e.g., to participate in a study for a week) before asking for a smaller favor (e.g., to complete a questionnaire). The results showed that those who had initially refused the large favor were more willing to perform the smaller favor as well.

By now, almost everyone has understood: We pay for the free use of services like Facebook, Tiktok, Google and Co. with our personal data. But what can the big tech companies do with this data? In a groundbreaking study researchers at Stanford University were able to provide a (somewhat creepy) answer: it is easy to predict the most important personality traits (including the Big Five: openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism) using only Facebook likes (Youyou et al., 2015).

The results of this study show that Facebook Likes are a valuable source for predicting personality traits and that machine learning models are capable of predicting these traits with high accuracy (Kosinski, Stillwell, & Graepel, 2013). However, there are also ethical concerns about privacy and the possibility that this technology could be abused (keyword: Cambridge Analytica).

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802-5805.

Markovikj, D., Gievska, S., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2013). Mining facebook data for predictive personality modeling. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 23-26).

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(48), 12714-12719.

Matz, S., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Nave, G. (2017). Psychological framing as an effective approach to real-life persuasive communication. ACR North American Advances.

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2018). Reply to Eckles et al.: Facebook’s optimization algorithms are highly unlikely to explain the effects of psychological targeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(23), E5256-E5257.

Matz, S., & Kosinski, M. (2019). Using consumers’ digital footprints for more persuasive mass communication. NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, 11(2), 18-23.

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2018). Reply to Sharp et al.: Psychological targeting produces robust effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(34), E7891-E7891.

Youyou, W., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(4), 1036-1040.

No matter if we are in the supermarket or shopping online: Every day we are manipulated by strategies from sales and price psychology. Extensive research has shown how we are seduced into buying by different price presentations. Not only the well-known nine prices play a central role, but we are also influenced by the color and the relative size of the price presentation. As is so often the case, those who know the marketing strategies can more easily protect themselves from them.

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2005). Size does matter: The effects of magnitude representation congruency on price perceptions and purchase likelihood. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 64-76.

Felser, G. (2015). Werbe-und Konsumentenpsychologie. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.

Puccinelli, N. M., Chandrashekaran, R., Grewal, D., & Suri, R. (2013). Are men seduced by red? The effect of red versus black prices on price perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 89(2), 115-125.

Schindler, R. M., & Kibarian, T. M. (1996). Increased consumer sales response though use of 99-ending prices. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 187-199.

Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: the left-digit effect in price cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 54-64.

Thomas, M., Simon, D. H., & Kadiyali, V. (2007). Do consumers perceive precise prices to be lower than round prices? Evidence from laboratory and market data. Evidence from Laboratory and Market Data (September 2007). Johnson School at Cornell University Research Paper, (09-07).

Van Droogenbroeck, E., Van Hove, L., & Cordemans, S. (2018). Do red prices also work online?: An extension of Puccinelli et al.(2013). Color Research & Application, 43(1), 110-113.

Wu, C., & Cosguner, K. (2020). Profiting from the decoy effect: A case study of an online diamond retailer. Marketing Science, 39(5), 974-995.

Xiao, Q., Zeng, S., & Feldman, G. (2020). Revisiting the decoy effect: replication and extension of Ariely and Wallsten (1995) and Connolly, Reb, and Kausel (2013)‎. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 4(2), 164-198.

Yang, S. S., Kimes, S. E., & Sessarego, M. M. (2009). Menu price presentation influences on consumer purchase behavior in restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 157-160.

__________

Definition “psychology of pricing” – what is it? 

The psychology of pricing refers to the study of how people perceive and respond to different prices for goods and services. It involves understanding the psychological factors that influence people’s decisions to purchase or not purchase a product, as well as the ways in which prices can be used to influence people’s perceptions and behaviors.

One example of the psychology of pricing is the concept of “anchoring,” which refers to the tendency for people to rely on initial information as a reference point when making decisions. For example, if a person sees a product for sale at a high price, they may perceive it as being of higher quality or value, even if similar products are available at lower prices. This can lead people to pay more for a product than they otherwise might, simply because they are anchored to the initial high price.

What can be done when children simply do not listen? Are there effective alternatives to yelling and scolding?

Educational psychology provides a variety of effective tips (supported by intensive research) that make it possible to give children guidance without having to use verbal or non-verbal violence. Three of these tips are presented in the video:

1. Natural/logical consequences

2. play in the same team

3. nature stimuli

__________________

Studies and books (only small selection):

Burck, E. (2020). Was tun, wenn Kinder nicht hören?: Wie die psychologische Forschung Eltern und Lehrern dabei hilft, die beste Erziehung zu finden (Erziehungspsychologie, Klassenführung, Pädagogische Psychologie). Books on Demand.

Faber Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of attention disorders, 12(5), 402-409.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98.

Han, K. T. (2009). Influence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants on the psychology, behavior, and health of students at a junior high school in Taiwan. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 658-692.

Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Van Aar, J., Hutchings, J., Schulz, S., … & Overbeek, G. (2019). Meta-analyses: Key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(2), 180-190.

Tyerman, A., & Spencer, C. (1983). A critical test of the Sherifs’ robber’s cave experiments: Intergroup competition and cooperation between groups of well-acquainted individuals. Small Group Behavior, 14(4), 515-531.

University of Oklahoma. Institute of Group Relations, & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 35(10), 1315-1329.

Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature: Effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and behavior, 32(6), 775-795.

The Evoking Freedom Technique is one of the simplest and at the same time most effective influencing techniques that have been investigated by psychologists in studies so far. In most cases it is enough to add one of the following sentences to a request:

“…, but you are free to accept or to refuse.”

“…, but don’t feel obliged.”

“…, feel free to say no.”

The technique probably works so well because we usually react to other people’s requests with reactance. That is, we initially have the impulse to say “no” because we don’t want to be restricted in our freedom (e.g. freedom of what we do with our time or money). However, as soon as someone assures us that we are completely free to decide, our sense of freedom is restored (evoking freedom), reactance is reduced and compliance increases. It is also interesting that the effectiveness of this technique varies according to culture (individualistic and freedom-loving versus collectivistic)…

__________________

Studien und Bücher (nur kleine Auswahl):

Burck, E. (2019). Das manipulierte Gehirn: Psychologie der unbewussten Beeinflussung. BoD–Books on Demand.

Burck, E. (2016). Neue Psychologie der Beeinflussung: Die Erforschung der Manipulation. BoD–Books on Demand.

Carpenter, C. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique. Communication Studies, 64(1), 6-17.

Carpenter, C. J., & Pascual, A. (2016). Testing the reactance vs. the reciprocity of politeness explanations for the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique. Social influence, 11(2), 101-110.

Farley, S. D., Kelly, J., Singh, S., Thornton Jr, C., & Young, T. (2019). “Free to Say No”: Evoking freedom increased compliance in two field experiments. The Journal of social psychology, 159(4), 482-489.

Samson-Secrieru, L., & Carpenter, C. J. (2017). Examining mindlessness and friendliness in the evoking-freedom compliance-gaining technique. Communication Research Reports, 34(4), 368-375.