Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


COMM 302 Presentation

No description

Silviana Khurniawan

on 29 April 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of COMM 302 Presentation

The Effect of Group VS Individual Approach on Compliance Gaining & Consistency Akifa Khan
Karina Ayu Putri
Silviana Khurniawan
Susanna Lee Introduction Analyzes the relationship between individual vs group tactics both with gift-giving and commitment and consistency Methodology Setting Participants Materials Procedure Variables and Measures USC's University Park Campus
Los Angeles, CA 90089 240 randomly chosen USC students 23 dozen Diddy Riese cookies 1st Scenario: Individual approach 2nd Scenario: Group approach Independent Variables:
- Individual vs group approach
- Social proof Dependent Variables:
- Commitment
- Consistency Hypothesis 1 The Ss approached by the group will be more willing to comply to take our online survey than the Ss approached by the individual Review of Literature Turner (1982) Crano and Prislin (2006) Result Limitations Personality Time shifts Locations Physical attractiveness No control group due to gift-giving
Differences in: Accent Age Future Research
Conduct a control group Control differences Hypothesis 2 There will be a greater number Ss who will be consistent, or complete the online survey under the group approach as oppsed to the Individual approach. Review of Lit. Simons and Steffens 2000 Hypothesis 3 The Ss approached by the group will be more likely to give their real e-mail addresses as opposed to the Ss approached by one member Limitations Hard to determine "fake" or "real" e-mail when deciphering handwritings Illegible handwritings Unclear definitions of "fake" and "real" Personal errors Future Research Prashanth and Dellande 2009 Results
Pearson Chi-Square
Asymp. Sig. =.165
101in ndividual setting and 50 took the online survey

136 in group setting and 55 took online survey No Significance Limitations Social Proof in reverse Rule of Reciprocity Time Length Future Reserach No blind study Its not social proof. beneifcal to grassroot movement campaigns Hypothesis 3: A subject approached by a group rather than by an individual will be more likely to give his/her real email address when asked to participate in our study. Review of Literature

Pilot Study Limitations/Weaknesses Definition of "fake" and "real"
"Technical Difficulty"
Personal Errors
Method used to determine "real" or "fake" Mail Delivery System USC Directory Results H3 NOT Supported Examples of Fake Email Addresses Relevance School setting (organizations, sororities, volunteer groups, petition, etc.)
"Real World" (marketing, surveys, etc.) H3
Full transcript