Cross Cultural Research 2012 Pascual 394 416

7/29/2019 Cross Cultural Research 2012 Pascual 394 416

1/24

http://ccr.sagepub.com/Cross-Cultural Research

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1069397112450859

20122012 46: 394 originally published online 3 OctoberCross-Cultural Research

and Robert-Vincent JouleSverine Halimi-Falkowicz, Lionel Souchet, Fabien Girandola, Nicolas Guguen

Alexandre Pascual, Christophe Oteme, Luminita Samson, Qiong Wang,Russia, and China

''You Are Free to. . .'' Technique in France, Ivory Coast, Romania,Cross-Cultural Investigation of Compliance Without Pressure : The

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Cross-Cultural Research

can be found at:Cross-Cultural Research

Additional services and information for

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 3, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 12, 2012Version of Record>>

at University of Bucharest on October 29, 2012ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sccr.org/http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/18/1069397112450859.full.pdfhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/18/1069397112450859.full.pdfhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394.full.pdfhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/18/1069397112450859.full.pdfhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394.full.pdfhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sccr.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/4/394http://ccr.sagepub.com/


2/24

Cross-Cultural Research46(4) 394416

2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1069397112450859http://ccr.sagepub.com

CCR 46 4 10.1177/1069397112450859Cross-Cultural ResearchPascual et al. 2011SAGE Publications

Reprintsand permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Universit Bordeaux Sgalen, Bordeaux Cedex, France2Universit de CocodyAbidjan (University of CocodyAbidjan), Ivory Coast3Universitatea de Stat Alecu Russo din Bli (Alecu State University of Bli), Bli, Moldova4Aix-Marseille Universit, Marseille, France5Universit de Bretagne Sud (University of Southern Brittany), Brittany, Morbihan, France

Corresponding Author:

Alexandre Pascual, Universit Bordeaux Sgalen, Laboratoire de Psychologie (Sant et Qualit

de Vie), EA 4139, 3 ter, Place de la Victoire, 33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France

Email: [email protected]

Cross-Cultural

Investigation of

Compliance Without

Pressure: The You Are

Free to. . . Technique

in France, Ivory Coast,

Romania, Russia, and China

Alexandre Pascual1, Christophe Oteme2,

Luminita Samson3, Qiong Wang4,

Sverine Halimi-Falkowicz4, Lionel Souchet4,

Fabien Girandola4, Nicolas Guguen5, and

Robert-Vincent Joule5

Abstract

Compliance-without-pressure techniques have been widely studied inNorth America and West Europe. Among these techniques, the but youare free (BYAF) is a verbal compliance procedure that solicits someone tocomply with a request by simply telling a person that he or she is free to

accept or refuse the request. This technique is interpreted with the commit-ment theory and the psychological reactance theory which are more rel-evant in individualistic cultures than in collectivist cultures. So, four studies

http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/


3/24

Pascual et al. 395

compared the efficiency of the BYAF technique in collectivist cultures (IvoryCoast, Russia, and China) and in individualist cultures (France and Romania).As suggested in the hypothesis, our analysis indicated that the BYAF tech-nique will be much less successful in more collectivist cultures. Such resultsunderline the importance of considering specific cultural contexts in socialinfluence studies.

Keywords

induction of a feeling of freedom, compliance with a request, individualism,collectivism, culture

The term compliance without pressure first appeared in 1966 under the pen of

Freedman and Fraser within the framework of their research on the foot-in-

the-door technique. For many decades, numerous compliance-without-pressure

studies have been carried out (for review, see Cialdini, 1993; Guguen, 2011;

Joule & Beauvois, 2002; Pratkanis, 2007). This is a set of techniques that may

lead people to willingly do what is expected of them (Joule & Beauvois,

1998). It is through these procedures that individuals submit to diverse typesof requests while believing that they have acted out of their own free will,

thus, the term compliance without pressure. More precisely, these techniques

concern behaviors qualified as nonproblematic, that is to say not in opposition

to the attitudes and opinions of the participants. This is contrary to the forced

compliance paradigm (or induced) which studies the impact of the realization

of an action which is problematic for the subject on the change in attitude

(Wicklund & Brehm, 1976).

The but you are free technique (BYAF) proposed by Guguen andPascual (2000) is one of the most recent compliance-without-pressure para-

digms. Its concept is simple: By embellishing a request made to another per-

son with the proposal you are free to. . . one can significantly increase the

possibility of acceptance. In their first study, Guguen and Pascual (2000)

asked passersby in a street to give them money. In the experimental condi-

tion, their request ended with the phrase but you are free to accept or refuse

whereas this phrase was not used in the control condition. They found that

10% of the solicited participants complied with the request in the control

condition, whereas 47.5% accepted in the experimental condition. This tech-

nique not only leads to increasing compliance with a request, but also to

increasing subject involvement. These authors also found in their experiment

that the average amount of donations granted by the participants was higher



4/24

396 Cross-Cultural Research46(4)

in the experimental condition than in the control condition. The simple induc-

tion of a feeling of freedom can therefore facilitate individual compliance to

various types of requests such as donating money, filling out a questionnaire,

visiting a website, or even purchasing a calendar (Guguen & Pascual, 2000;

Guguen et al., in press; Guguen, Pascual & Dagot, 2004; Guguen, Pascual,

Jacob & Morineau, 2002; Pascual & Guguen, 2002).

To explain this effect, two theories can be put forward: The commitment

theory (Kiesler, 1971; Kiesler & Sakumura, 1966) and the theory of psycho-

logical reactance (Brehm, 1966; Miron & Brehm, 2006).

According to Kiesler (1971), several factors can raise the degree of com-

mitment that individuals have to their actions. Among these factors, the

feeling of freedom, according to the author, is one of the most powerful.Accordingly, the more an individual is placed in a context of freedom while

acting out a particular behavior, the more he or she is committed to this

behavior. Yet

Nothing is easier than creating a context of freedom. It is enough to

accompany the request made to the subject with a phrase affirming that

he is free to do or not to do what is expected of him. We consider this

phrase to be one of the most fascinating in scientific literature. Fiftyyears of research shows us that it is a powerful factor for committing

people to their acts, even certainly the most powerful. (Joule &

Beauvois, 1998, p. 71)

Thus, in the context of asking strangers for money in the street, partici-

pants who were declared free not only complied more often with the request

but they also displayed greater generosity by giving larger donations than the

participants in the control condition (Guguen & Pascual, 2000; Pascual &Guguen, 2002; Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4). In fact, everything here seems to

be happening as if the context of freedom generated by the proposal you are

free to . . . brought the participants to be more committed to the altruistic

behavior expected of them, bringing about higher average donations.

But the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) could also help

interpret the effects produced by the BYAF technique. Reactance is charac-

terized by a state of negative motivation followed by a threat (perceived as

real) of a restriction of individual freedom and leads one to resist its influ-

ence. This theory therefore postulates that a threat or loss of freedom will

motivate an individual to reconstruct that very freedom. Thereby, when indi-

vidual X asks for help from individual Y, it is probable that in most cases, Y

will be susceptible to feeling reactance as X is trying to dictate to Y what



5/24

Pascual et al. 397

behavior to carry out. There would be a supposed restriction of freedom for

Y. At this point, to recuperate his or her freedom, Y is likely to reject Xs

request. However, if X accompanies his or her request with the proposal,

You are free to. . ., it is possible that Ys rate of reactance will decline

noticeably, which would result in Y being more likely to accept the request.

Actually, the theories of commitment and psychological reactance are not

really different because the first focuses on the induction of a feeling of free-

dom and the second on the threat of getting deprived of this feeling of free-

dom. Both theories can help in understanding the effects of BYAF and are not

alternatives to each other. Within the framework of BYAF, we will back up our

reflection by taking into account the two explicative processes suggested by

the theory of commitment, and of reactance, which we will examine throughthe cultural dimension of individualism and collectivism. In effect, the BYAF

technique has only been studied in an individualist culture (France) and cer-

tain elements will lead us to consider BYAF to be less efficient in collectiv-

ist cultures. In reference to literature coming from cultural and intercultural

psychology, in individualist cultures people are autonomous and independent

from their in-groups; they give priority to their personal goals over the goals

of their in-groups, they behave primarily on the basis of their attitudes rather

than the norms of their in-groups (Triandis, 2001, p. 909). In collectivist cul-tures, people are interdependent within their in-groups (family, tribe, nation,

etc.), give priority to the goals of their in-groups, shape their behavior primar-

ily on the basis of in-group norms, and behave in a communal way (Triandis,

2001, p. 909). In reality, this distinction had already been made by Hofstede

(1980) within the framework of organizational psychology. For this author,

individualism refers to a society in which the links between individuals are

loose; an individual is only expected to take care of himself and his relatives

(Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p. 601). Inversely, a collectivist soci-ety is one in which an individual is assimilated from birth into a strong and

cohesive in-group which in exchange for his unfailing loyalty, makes sure of

his protection (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p. 599). Based on these

definitions, the meaning of individual liberty can be considered relative and

to vary according to cultural context. As such, on the basis of the annual rank-

ings published byFreedom House, the freest countries in the world are in vast

majority individualist countries. These rankings are notably based on a civil

liberties index measured for each country. As a consequence of these consid-

erations, the BYAF technique may turn out not to be very pertinent in collec-

tivist cultures. This hypothesis makes sense from a theoretical point of view if

we focus on the works studying the theory of commitment, and of reactance

within individualist and collectivist cultures.

http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/


6/24


Commitment Theory and Individualism/

Collectivism

According to Joule and Beauvois (1998), commitment, in a given situation,

corresponds to conditions in which the realization of an action can only be

attributable to the person who did it. This definition is essentially founded on

the basis of studies done on individualist cultures. In collectivist cultures

however, because of the interdependence among individuals, conditions in

which the realization of an action is only attributable to the individual who

did the action may be difficult to assess. Although few studies have been

done to explain the effects of commitment within collectivist cultures, cer-

tain data suggest contrasting results contingent on cultural context. Kim andSherman (2007) showed that offering a choice led American students (indi-

vidualist culture) to be subsequently more committed to their choice than

students coming from East Asia (collectivist culture). This observation sug-

gests that the theory of commitment and therefore, the BYAF technique, may

be less efficient in collectivist cultures as compared to individualist cultures.

Another way to arrive to this conclusion would be to consider the fact that

the explanations individuals give regarding their behavior differ depending on

the type of culture they come from. In fact, individualists are more likely to seethemselves as being at the origin of their behavior as compared to collectivists.

The results of certain works having studied the concept of locus of control

(Rotter, 1966) within these two types of cultures are along these lines. Thus,

collectivist cultures have been found to be characterized by a belief in external

control whereas individualist cultures are characterized by a belief in internal

control (Ng & Zhu, 2001; Norenzayan, Choi, & Nisbett, 1999). For this pur-

pose, a vast intercultural study conducted in 24 countries allowed a strong posi-

tive correlation between individualism/collectivism and internality/externalityto be put forward (Spector et al., 2001). The individuals favoring a belief in

internal control seemed to be more susceptible to compliance-without-pressure

techniques (Channouf, 1990; Desrumaux, 1996). This reasoning leads us to

suggest that the BYAF technique may be more efficient in individualist cultures

than in collectivist cultures.

Psychological Reactance Theory

and Individualism/CollectivismPsychological reactance theory is generally presented as universal within the

field of social psychology. However, the importance of individual freedom in

this theory suggests that it may be limited to individualist values. Although few



7/24

Pascual et al. 399

studies have been conducted on the matter, Savani, Markus, and Conner (2008,

Experiment 5) observed more reactance from American students (individual-

ists) compared to Indian students (collectivists) while using a classic reactance

theory method (Brehm, 1966). In the same way, Jonas et al. (2009, Experiment 1)

showed that participants coming from an individualist culture (students from

Western Europe) felt more reactance when their individual freedom was threat-

ened, compared to students coming from a collectivist culture (students from

East Asia). If as we have previously seen, the induction of a feeling of freedom

generated by the BYAF technique decreases reactance in individuals. It is pos-

sible that this is not the case in collectivist cultures where reactance is a much

more difficult state to observe. Thus BYAF would not be efficient in collectiv-

ist cultures whereas it would be in individualist cultures where people are moresusceptible to feeling reactance in their daily lives.1

To test this general hypothesis, we used the BYAF technique in a series of

four studies in countries characterized as having either an individualist or col-

lectivist cultural orientation. According to Triandis (1989), individualist cul-

tures include Northern and Western Europe as well as North America; whereas

collectivist cultures would be characteristic of Asia, Africa, and South America.

Study 1

In our first study, we tested the BYAF technique in France and in the Ivory

Coast. Works on collectivist countries have mostly been done on Asian cul-

tures and as far as Africa is concerned, studies done there are still rare. Some

countries in this continent have nonetheless been identified as collectivist

such as Kenya (Vaunne & Schoeneman, 1997), Congo-Zaire (Westerhof,

Dittmann-Kohli, & Katzko, 2000), Congo-Brazzaville (Louakima, 2004),

Cameroon (Pirttil-Backman, Kassea, & Ikonen, 2004), and South Africa(Eaton & Louw, 2000). Furthermore, according to Hofstede classification, the

value of individualism is scored 71 for France and 20 for West Africa (includ-

ing Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra-Leone). To our knowledge, the only measure

allowing the Ivory Coast to be classified among collectivist countries was

taken by Bourgoin (1984) using Hofstede (1980) indicators.

Hypothesis

The Ivory Coast being considered a country of a collectivist cultural orienta-

tion and France of an individualist one, we will formulate the hypothesis that

the BYAF technique is only effective in France.



8/24


Method

Participants

A total of 609 men and women passersby (387 Ivorians and 222 French

people) between 25 to 50 years of age participated in the study.

Procedure

Eight Ivorian students (7 males and 1 female) and eight French students (7

males and 1 female) who were unaware of the hypothesis of the study were

the experimenters in their respective countries. They were instructed to

approach passersby that were alone in pedestrian streets in the cities ofAbidjan, Ivory Coast, and Bordeaux, France (two urban cities) to ask them

to fill out a questionnaire composed of 17 items (target request). The experi-

menters formulated their request in one of the following two ways:

Control formulation: Hello, sorry to bother you, but Im a student

and for my studies Im required to have people in the street fill out

questionnaires, would you help me by filling one out?

BYAF formulation: Hello, sorry to bother you, but Im a student andfor my studies Im required to have people in the street fill out ques-

tionnaires, would you help me by filling one out? Of course, you are

free to accept or refuse.

If the subject accepted, the experimenter had him or her fill out the ques-

tionnaire, the subject was thanked and then the experimenter indicated at the

bottom of the questionnaire whether the control formulation or the BYAF

formulation had been used. The participants who went on their way beforethe experimenter finished reciting the formulation where not accounted for

in the study.

Results

We used separate one-way Chi Square tests on compliance rates for each

country. The results presented in Figure 1 show that the BYAF technique had

a significant effect in France, (1, 222) = 3.78, p < .05, = .13, but not in

the Ivory Coast, (1, 387) = 2.90,p > .09, ns, = .09. However, there was

more compliance in the control condition in the Ivory Coast than in France,

(1, 357) = 1.96,p < .002, = .25.



9/24

Pascual et al. 401

Discussion

Our hypothesis is supported as the BYAF technique was associated with

more acquiescence in France and was not significant in the Ivory Coast.However, this is to be considered with caution because the results obtained

in the Ivory Coast can possibly be attributed to a high level of compliance in

the control condition (60.1%). This is a frequently observed phenomenon in

the field of social influence that is to say that although the level of compli-

ance in the control condition is high, the efficiency in the experimental group

is found to be reduced. This had already been observed in France with BYAF

by Pascual (2002, Experiment 5). So the request used in this study may not

have been considered demanding enough for the Ivorian participants. Toavoid this potential bias, we will have recourse to studies following a more

demanding request which will therefore be more difficult to comply with.

Study 2

In our second study, we tested the BYAF technique in France, Russia, and

Romania. In the literature, France has always been characterized as being an

individualist country (Hofstede et al., 2010) and Russia as a collectivist coun-

try (Hofstede et al., 2010; Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani, Kouznetsova, &

Krupp, 1998). Recently, Grossmann and Varnum (2011) found that Russians

endorse more interdependent self-views than Americans. In the case of

Romania, even if the Hofstede (1980) classification clearly identified it as

being a collectivist country, it seems that is no longer the situation today

39.5%

60.1%52.7%

68.6%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

France Ivory Coast

Country

Control condition

BYAF condition

Figure 1. Rate of acceptance of the target request (filling out a questionnaire)contingent on the country and the formulation used



10/24


(Ciochin & Faria, 2009; Heintz, 2002; Shulruf et al., 2011). For example,

using Hofstedes measure of individualism, Romania scored 30 in past time

(Hofstede, 1980) but 65 nowadays (Van den Berg, 2011). Therefore, the

degree of individualism in a given country can vary throughout the course of

time (Spector, Cooper, & Sparks, 2001). For example, Mexico which was

initially classified among collectivist countries by Hofstede (1980) was later

classified among individualist cultures by Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, and

Nicholson (1997). The authors attributed this change to the economic devel-

opment that took place in this country between the two evaluations. Since the

classification of Romania among collectivist countries (Hofstede, 1980), this

country has seen at least two important social events: (a) the end of a com-

munist dictatorship in 1989 with the advent of democracy and (b) accessionto the European Union in 2007. Individualism is most notably present in

countries that are considered to be democratic and the European Union is

essentially composed of individualist cultures. Romania has therefore most

likely gone from a collectivist orientation to an individualist orientation

(Ciochin & Faria, 2009). The analysis of the annual Freedom House reports

since 1972 indicate that Romania was classified among nonfree countries

from 1972 until 1990, then among partially free countries until 1995 and

finally as a free country up until today.2

Hypothesis

Russia being a country of a collectivist orientation, Romania, heading toward

an individualist orientation and France being a country of an individualist

orientation, we will formulate the hypothesis that the BYAF technique will

only have a significant effect in France and Romania.

Method

Participants

A total of 360 adult men and women (120 French people [60 males and 60

females], 120 Romanians [60 males and 60 females], and 120 Russians [60

males and 60 females]) participated in the study.

Procedure

In all three countries, the same trilingual female experimenter3 approached

people that were alone in public places. The exchanges took place in the cit-

ies of Aix-en-Provence and Marseille in France, in Iassi and Piatra-Neamt in



11/24

Pascual et al. 403

Romania, and in Puskina and Moscow in Russia (6 urban cities). While

wearing a smile and maintaining eye contact, the experimenter asked the

participants to fill out a questionnaire and alternated the formulation of her

request between the two following manners:

Control formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each

country): Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something

to ask you. Im doing a survey on political opinions to know what

people think of politicians: their personalities, their actions. Would

you have 10 minutes to respond to this questionnaire? (The experi-

menter held the questionnaire in her hand.).

BYAF formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each coun-try): Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something to ask

you. Im doing a survey on political opinions to know what people

think of politicians: their personalities, their actions. Would you

have 10 minutes to respond to this questionnaire? (The experi-

menter held the questionnaire in her hand.). But of course, you are

free to accept or refuse.

ResultsWe used separate one-way chi square tests on compliance rates for each coun-

try. The results presented in Figure 2 indicate that the BYAF technique had a

significant effect in France, (1, 120) = 4.88, p < .03, = .20, and in

Romania, (1, 120) = 6.13,p < .02, = .23, but not in Russia, (1, 120) = 0.79,

20%25%

18.3%

38.3%

46.7%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

France Romania Russia

Country

Control condition

BYAF condition




12/24


p > .37, ns, = .08. Furthermore, the comparison of the control conditions

indicate that the target request was accepted in the same proportions in France

as in Romania, (1, 120) = 0.43,p > .51, ns, = .06, in France as in Russia,

(1, 120) = 0.05,p > .81, ns, = .02, as well as in Romania as in Russia, (1,

120) = 0.79,p > .37, ns, = .08. Furthermore, we found no effect of the gen-

der of the participants per condition or country on compliance rate.

Discussion

Our hypothesis is supported as the BYAF technique had a significant effect

in the countries that we had considered to be individualist (France and

Romania) whereas no significant effect was found in the collectivist country(Russia). These results appear more reliable than those found in Study 1

because the control conditions in all three countries present similar compli-

ance rates (between 18.3% and 25%).

Study 3

In the two previous studies the target request was asking participants to fill

out a questionnaire. In Study 3, we tried to replicate the results obtained inStudy 2 in France, Romania, and Russia while changing the target request.

In this case, passerby will be asked for money, a classic request in the field

of compliance without pressure (Abrahams & Bell, 1994; Burger &

Cornelius, 2003; Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976; Harris, 1972; Howard, 1990;

Kleinke, 1977; Pascual & Guguen, 2002; Santos, Leve, & Pratkanis, 1994).

Hypothesis

In line with the results from Study 2, Russia being a country of a collectivist

orientation, Romania, a country heading toward an individualist orientation

and France a country of an individualist orientation, we will formulate the

hypothesis that the BYAF technique will only have a significant effect in

France and Romania.

Method

Participants

A total of 360 adult men and women (120 French people [60 males and 60

females], 120 Romanians [60 males and 60 females], and 120 Russians [60

males and 60 females]) participated in the study.



13/24

Pascual et al. 405

Procedure

In all three countries, the same trilingual female experimenter4 approached

people that were waiting alone at bus stops. The exchanges took place in the

cities of Aix-en-Provence and Marseille in France, in Iassi and Piatra-Neamt

in Romania, and in Puskina and Moscow in Russia (6 urban cities).

The experimenter asked the participants for the favor of giving her some

change (60 cents of a Euro in France, 60 Bani in Romania, and 15 Rubli in

Russia; these amounts are the approximate equivalent of half the price of a

bus ticket in each country). She alternated the formulation of her request

between the following two manners:

Control formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each

country): Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something to

ask you. I forgot my change purse at home and I need 60 cents/60

Bani/15 Rubli to take the bus (the experimenter was already holding

50 cents/60 Bani/15 Rubli in her hand). Could you please help me

out? I absolutely need to take the bus.

BYAF formulation (30 male and 30 female participants in each coun-

try): Hello, excuse me for bothering you. I have something toask you. I forgot my change purse at home and I need 60 cents/60

Bani/15 Rubli to take the bus (the experimenter was already holding

50 cents/60 Bani/15 Rubli in her hand). Could you please help me

out? I absolutely need to take the bus. But of course, you are free to

accept or refuse.

Results

We used separate one-way chi-square tests on compliance rates for each

country. Similarly to the results in Study 2, The results presented in Figure 3

indicate that the BYAF technique had a significant effect in France, (1,

120) = 4.73, p < .03, = .20, and in Romania, (1, 120) = 5.91, p < .02,

= .22, but not in Russia, (1, 120) = 1.26, p > .26, ns, = .10. In addition,

the comparison of the control conditions indicates that the target request was

accepted in the same proportions in France as in Romania, (1, 120) = 0,21,

p > .64, ns, = .04, in France as in Russia, (1, 120) = 0,48, p > .48, ns,

= .06, as well as in Romania as in Russia, (1, 120) = 0,06,p > .81, ns,

= 02. Furthermore, no effect of the gender of participants per condition or

country on compliance rate was observed. However, even if the hypothesis

in studies 2 and 3 has been supported, this is to be considered with caution.



14/24


Indeed, we dont know if speaking with a foreign rather than a national

accent in asking a small favor may not create a bias in the two studies.

Discussion

Similarly to Study 2, our hypothesis is supported as the BYAF technique had

a significant effect in France and Romania but not in Russia. Furthermore,

these results seem reliable as the target request seems to have been perceived

the same way in all three countries. In fact, the control conditions in France,

Romania, and Russia had very comparable rates of compliance (between

16.7% and 21.7%).

Study 4

In the three previous studies, we tested the BYAF technique in cultures clas-

sified as individualist or collectivist based on elements found in literature.

However, we did not directly measure the individualism/collectivism scores

of the populations studied. Study 4 does not present this drawback. In fact,

we did a pretest to measure the individual/collectivist scores of French and

Chinese students before testing the BYAF techniques in this segment of the

population of both countries.

Westerners define themselves by their personality traits, values, and per-

sonal attributes: as independent individuals. Asians define themselves by

their group memberships: as interdependent. According to Markus and

21.7% 18.3% 16.7%

40% 38.3%

25%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

80%90%

100%

France Romania Russia

Country

Control condition

BYAF condition

Figure 3. Rate of acceptance of the request (accepting to give some money)contingent on the country and the formulation used



15/24

Pascual et al. 407

Kitayama (1991), cultural differences are a product of cultural norms which

favor an independent or interdependent conception of oneself. So, because

the construal of the self is linked with cultural context, on average, relatively

more individuals in individualistic cultures have an independent self and

inversely an interdependent self in collectivist cultures.

Hypothesis

According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), cultural differences are a prod-

uct of cultural norms which favor an independent or interdependent concep-

tion of oneself. Westerners define themselves by their personality traits,

values, and personal attributes: as independent individuals, whereas Asiansdefine themselves by their group memberships: as interdependent. Thus,

Chinese students should have higher collectivism scores than French stu-

dents. China being considered a country of a collectivist cultural orientation

and France of an individualist one, we will formulate the hypothesis that the

BYAF technique will only have a significant effect in France.

MethodPretest

Two hundred Chinese students (89 males and 111 females) and 200 French

students (87 males and 113 females) filled out The Cultural Orientation

Scale (COS) by Bierbrauer, Meyer, and Wolfradt (1994). The COS was

translated from English into French and Chinese and was validated by itera-

tive forward- and back-translation to reach an optimal level of translation.

This tool allows collectivism to be measured on two dimensions: the norma-tive dimension of collectivism and the evaluative dimension of collectivism.

Each of these dimensions is measured by 13 items on a scale of 1 to 7. The

higher the score, the more a subject is collectivist.

Regarding the normative dimension of the COS, Chinese students obtained

an average score of 4.24 ( = 0.48) compared to 4.12 ( = 0.37) for the

French students, t(398) = 2.80,p < .01.

Regarding the evaluative dimension of the COS, Chinese students were

also found to be more collectivist with an average score of 4.69 ( = 0.47)

compared to 4.57 ( = 0.42) for the French students, t(398) = 2.55,p < .01.

In light of our pretest, Chinese students are more collectivist than French

students. This result is consistent with the literature that classifies China

among countries of a collectivist orientation (Fernandez et al., 1997; Spector

et al., 2001).



16/24


Participants

A total of 128 students (64 French [32 males and 32 females] and 64 Chinese

[32 males and 32 females]) participated in the study. None of these students

were majoring in psychology; this was to avoid having students with knowl-

edge of works done on compliance without pressure.

Procedure

In France, the study took place at the University of Burgundy in the library. In

China, the study was conducted at the University of Economics and Business

of Shijiazhuang (approximately 9 million inhabitants) located around 350 kmsouthwest of Beijing. The participants were approached in university class-

rooms where no classes were taking place because that is generally where

students work, the library being only for checking out documents.

In both countries, an experimenter approached students working alone

and asked them to fill out a questionnaire (which would take around 30

min). She alternated the formulation of her request between the two follow-

ing manners:

Control formulation (16 male and 16 female participants in each country):

Hello, Im a student in social sciences and Im doing a survey on envi-

ronmental protection. Do you have a half an hour to respond to an anon-

ymous questionnaire of a hundred questions? If the subject accepted,

the experimenter gave him or her the questionnaire adding, Thank

you. Take your time and respond as sincerely as possible. Once the

questionnaire was filled out, the experimenter thanked the subject.

BYAF formulation (16 male and 16 female participants in each coun-try): Hello, Im a student in social sciences and Im doing a survey

on environmental protection. Do you have a half an hour to respond

to an anonymous questionnaire of a hundred questions? Of course,

youre free to accept or not. If the subject accepted, the experi-

menter gave him or her, the questionnaire adding, Thank you. Take

your time and respond as sincerely as possible. Once the question-

naire was filled out, the experimenter thanked the subject.

The questionnaire response time (a half an hour) was chosen to avoid, as

was the case in Study 1, that the request be too easily accepted in the control

condition. It consists of a hundred items related to attitudes, motivations as

well as the level of satisfaction of the students toward the protection of the

environment.



17/24

Pascual et al. 409

Results

We used separate one-way chi-square tests on compliance rates for each

country. The results presented in Figure 4 indicate that the BYAF technique

had a significant effect in France, (1, 64) = 5.50, p < .02, = .29, but not

in China, (1, 64) = 0.11,p > .74, ns, = .04. A complementary analysis of

the control conditions indicates that the target request was accepted in the

same proportions in France as in China, (1, 64) = 0.41,p > .52, ns, = .08.

Discussion

After verifying with the help of the COS that the Chinese were more col-lectivist than the French, the results in Study 4 confirm those obtained in

studies 1, 2, and 3. In fact, the BYAF technique only had a significant effect

in France. Furthermore, the rates of compliance in the control conditions of

both countries were very close (21.9% vs. 15.6%), our results cannot be

attributable to a difference in perception of the difficulty of the target request,

as could be the case in Study 1.

Summary Results and Discussion

If we look into the cultural origin of compliance-without-pressure strategies,

we will find that they are mostly from North America and it is there, where

they have been studied in greatest numbers. For example, nearly all the refer-

ences cited in Cialdini (1993), Guguen (2011), Joule and Beauvois (2002)

or Pratkanis (2007) are North American. We have asked whether all these

techniques remain valid in other cultural contexts (Cialdini, Wosinska,

Barrett, Butner, & Gornik-Durose, 1999). We have seen that the theories ofcommitment and of psychological reactance, which are more relevant in

individualistic cultures than in collectivist cultures, are cited by the research-

ers to explain the effects of the BYAF technique (Guguen et al., 2004).

Therefore, we hypothesized that it was only in individualist cultural con-

texts (France and Romania) that the BYAF technique would have a signifi-

cant effect. Indeed, it is in this type of cultural context where people are more

likely to aspire a feeling of individual freedom. As such, lets remember that

Frances state motto is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the word liberty is

placed first. Inversely, in collectivist cultures where people are more interde-

pendent, the concept of individual liberty has little social value or even

meaning, likely rendering the BYAF technique ineffective. In any case, that

is what is implied by the results obtained in the three collectivist countries



18/24


we considered: the Ivory Coast, Russia and China. Table 1 shows the average

BYAF effect size obtained in individualist cultures ( = .21) to be clearly

superior to this average in collectivist cultures ( = .08), t(8) = 4.71,p < .002.

These results were expected as collectivist individuals arent as easily con-

vinced to partake in an action and are less susceptible to reactance than

individualists.

If we acknowledge that individualist societies are characterized by a much

greater level of individual freedom, it should be noted that it was in the coun-

tries of our study classified as being free (France and Romania) by the

21.9% 15.6%

50%

18.8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

70%80%90%

100%

France China

Country

Control condition

BYAF condition


Table 1. Effect Size of the BYAF Technique Among Countries

Study Country Effect size ()Cultural

orientationMean effect

size ()

1 France .13 Individualist .21

2 France .202 Romania .23

3 France .20

3 Romania .22

4 France .29

1 Ivory Coast .09 Collectivist .08

2 Russia .08

3 Russia .10

4 China .04



19/24

Pascual et al. 411

Freedom House, that the BYAF technique had a significant effect. Inversely,

the Ivory Coast, Russia, and China are among the countries classified as non-

free according to theFreedom House and no significant effect from the BYAF

technique could be observed in any of them. In conclusion, we would like to

emphasize that in the literature on compliance-without-pressure techniques,

there are few intercultural studies (Cialdini et al., 1999; Kilbourne, 1989;

Petrova, Cialdini, & Sills, 2007). This field of research offers many prospects

for understanding the underlying processes of diverse techniques. Our four

studies allowed us to demonstrate that as we had hypothesized, the BYAF

technique would be effective in the two individualist cultures (France and

Romania), whereas it wouldnt be in the three collectivist cultures (Ivory

Coast, Russia, and China). Future studies will allow us to see, as it can besupposed, whether this hypothesis is equally valid in other countries com-

posed of both individualist and collectivist cultures. However, individualism

is strongly correlated with the free statute of a country,5 a limit in our studies

is that we dont know whether its the type of culture (individualist vs. col-

lectivist) or the statute of this country which reinforces the effectiveness of

the BYAF. So, although there does not exist not free country having an indi-

vidualistic culture, future research could thus be carried out in the few free

countries with collectivist cultures such as Costa Rica, Chile, Brazil, Ghana,Cape Verde, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-tion of this article.

Notes

1. Our general hypothesis is compatible with Markus and Kitayamas (1991, 2010)

theory of independent vs. interdependent self. In individualistic cultures the self

is generally viewed as independent from others, whereas in collectivistic cultures

the self is viewed as interdependent from others. So, the BYAF works because

it affirms the independent self, whereas if people do not possess an independent

self, the technique will be probably not effective.

2. France has been classified as a free country since 1972, when the firstFreedom

House report was issued and Russia has been classified as a nonfree country

since its creation in 1991.



20/24


3. With the Moldavian and Romanian dual nationality.

4. With the Moldavian and Romanian dual nationality.

5. Among theFreedom House classification, afreecountry is one where there is

open political competition, climate of respect for civil liberties, significant inde-

pendent civic life, and independent media. Inversely, a not free country is one

where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and

systematically denied.

References

Abrahams, M. F., & Bell, R. A. (1994). Encouraging charitable contributions: An

examination of three models of door-in-the-face compliance. Communication

Research, 21, 131-153.

Bierbrauer, G., Meyer, H., & Wolfradt, U. (1994). Measurement of normative and

evaluative aspects in individualistic and collectivistic orientations: The Cultural

Orientation Scale (COS). In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, &

G. Yoon (Eds.),Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications

(pp. 189-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bourgoin, H. (1984).LAfrique malade du management[The African patient manage-

ment]. Paris, France: Editions Jean Picollec.

Brehm, J. W. (1966).A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.Burger, J. M., & Cornelius, T. (2003). Raising the price of agreement: Public com-

mitment and the lowball compliance.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33,

923-934.

Channouf, A. (1990).Antcdents et effets cognitifs et comportementaux des conduits

[History and cognitive and behavioral effects of behavior: Internality to the con-

sistency] (Doctoral dissertation). Universit de Sciences Sociales de Grenoble,

Grenoble, France.

Cialdini, R. B. (1993).Influence : Science and practice. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Cialdini, R. B., & Schroeder, D. A. (1976). Increasing compliance by legitimizing pal-

try contributions: When Even a Penny Helps.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 34, 599-604.

Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999).

Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social

proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists.Personal-

ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1242-1253.

Ciochin, L., & Faria, L. (2009). Individualism and collectivism: What differences

between Portuguese and Romanian adolescents? Spanish Journal of Psychology,

12, 555-564.

Desrumaux, P. (1996).Explications causales et engagement contre ou pro-attitudinal:

De linternalit aux conduites pro-attitudinales[Causal explanations and commit-



21/24

Pascual et al. 413

ment against or pro-attitudinal behavior of internality to pro-attitudinal] (Doctoral

dissertation). Universit de Lille 3-Charles-de-Gaulle, Lille, France.

Eaton, L., & Louw, J. (2000). Culture and self in South Africa: Individualism-

collectivism predictions.Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 210-217.

Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstedes

country classification 25 years later.Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43-54.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-

the-door technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.

Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition.

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 81-89.

Guguen, N. (2011).Psychologie de la manipulation et de la soumission[Psychology

of manipulation and submission]. Paris, France: Dunod.

Guguen, N., Joule, R. V., Halimi, S., Pascual, A., Fischer-Lokou, J., & Dufourcq-Brana, M.

(in press). Im free but Ill comply with your request: Generalization and multi-

dimensional effects of the evoking freedom technique.Journal of Applied Social

Psychology.

Guguen, N., Pascual, A., Jacob, C., & Morineau, T. (2002). Request sollicitation and

semantic evocation of freedom: an evaluation in a computer-mediated communi-

cation context.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 208-212.

Guguen, N., Pascual, A., & Dagot, L. (2004). Se soumettre en toute libert : La tech-nique du vous tes libre de. . . .[Submit freely: The technique of you are free . . .].

Perspectives Cognitives et Conduites Sociales, 9, 365-384.

Guguen, N., & Pascual, A. (2000). Evocation of freedom and compliance: The but

you are free of. . . technique. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 264-270.

Harris, M. B. (1972). The effects of performing one altruistic act on the likehood of

performing another.Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 65-73.

Heintz, M. (2002). Changes in work ethic in postsocialist Romania (Doctoral disser-

tation). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culturess consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures et organisations: Com-

prendre nos programmations mentales [Cultures and organizations: Understand-

ing our mental programming]. Paris, France: Pearson Education.

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, 1185-1196.

Jonas, E., Graupmann, V., Kayser, D. N., Zanna, M., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Frey, D.

(2009). Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a universal free-

dom?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1068-1080.

Joule, R. V., & Beauvois, J. L. (1998).La soumission librement consentie [The volun-

tary submission]. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.



22/24


Joule, R. V., & Beauvois, J. L. (2002).Petit trait de manipulation lusage des hon-

ntes gens [Short treatise on the use of manipulation of honest men]. Grenoble,

France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Kiesler, C. A., & Sakumura, J. (1966). A test of a model for commitment.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 349-353.

Kilbourne, B. (1989). A cross-cultural investigation of foot-in-the-door compliance

induction procedure.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(1), 3-38.

Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). Express yourself: Culture and the effect of self-

expression on choice.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1-11.

Kleinke, C. (1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experiment-

ers in field settings.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 218-223.

Louakima, J. (2004, September 1-4).Lindividualisme et le collectivisme en Afrique

versus Europe. Lexemple du Congo-Brazzaville versus France [Individualism

and collectivism in Africa versus Europe. The example of CongoBrazzaville

vs. France]. Paper presented at 5th International Congress of French Language

and Social Psychology. Organized by ADRIPS and the University of Lausanne,

Lausanne, Western Switzerland.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cogni-

tion, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual consti-

tution.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420-430.

Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S., Kouznetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998).

The contribution of individualismcollectivism to cross-national differences in

display rules.Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 147-165.

Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory40 years later. Zeitschrift

fr Sozialpsychologie, 37, 9-18.

Ng, S. H. & Zhy, Y. (2001). Attributing causality and remembering events in individual-and group-acting situations: A Beijing, Hong Kong, and Wellington comparison.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4,39-52.

Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Eastern and Western perceptions of

causality for social behavior: Lay theories about personalities and situations. In

D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural Divides: Understanding and over-

coming group conflict(pp. 239-272). New York, NY: Russel Sage.

Pascual, A. (2002). Soumission sans pression et technique du vous tes libre de. . .

[Submission of technical and non-pressure you are free . . .] (Doctoral disserta-

tion). Universit Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux, France.

Pascual, A., & Guguen, N. (2002). La technique du vous tes libre de. . .: Induction

dun sentiment de libert et soumission une requte ou le paradoxe dune libert

manipulatrice [The technique of you are free . . .: Induction of a sense of freedom



23/24

Pascual et al. 415

and submission to a request or the paradox of freedom manipulator.].Revue Inter-

nationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15(1), 51-80.

Petrova, P. K., Cialdini, R. B., & Sills, S. J. (2007). Consistency-based compliance

across cultures.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 104-111.

Pirttil-Backman, A. M., Kassea, B. R., & Ikonen, T. (2004). Cameroonian forms of

collectivism and individualism.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 481-498.

Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence: Advances and future prog-

ress. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.

Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seven-

teen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique.Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 24, 755-764.

Savani, K., Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide

? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for

Indians.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 861-876.

Shulruf, B., Alesi, M., Ciochina, L., Faria, L., Hattie, J., Fu, H., & Watkins, D. (2011).

Measuring collectivism and individualism in the third millenium. Social Behavior

& Personality: An International Journal, 39, 173-187.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., ODriscol, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., . . . Yu, S.(2001). Do national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to

well-being: And ecological level international study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 22, 815-832.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psy-

chometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison

of individual and country/province level results.Applied Psychology: An Interna-

tional Review, 50, 269-281.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in different cultural contexts.Psychological Review, 96, 269-289.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Per-

sonality, 69, 907-924.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of indi-

vidualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,

1006-1020.

Van den Berg, P. T. (2010). Comparing the cultures of Romania and the Netherlands:

When East meets West.Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 10,30-41.

Vaunne, M., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1997). Individualism versus collectivism: A com-

parison of Kenyan and American self-concepts. Basic and Applied Social Psy-

chology, 19, 261-273.



24/24


Westerhof, G. J., Dittman-Kohli, F., & Katzko, M. W. (2000). Individualism and col-

lectivism in the personal meaning system of elderly adults. The United States and

Congo/Zaire as an example.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 649-676.

Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance.

New York, NY: Wiley.

Bios

Alexandre Pascual is an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of

Bordeaux Segalen in France. His research focuses on behavioral influence process.

Christophe Oteme is an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of

Cocody in Ivory Coast.

Luminita Samson is a doctor of social psychology at the Alecu State University of

Bli in Moldova.

Qiong Wang is currently a doctoral dissertation student at the Aix-Marseille

University in France.

Sverine Halimi-Falkowicz is an assistant professor of information and communica-tion sciences at the Aix-Marseille University in France. His research interests focus

principally on forced compliance and compliance without pressure.

Lionel Souchet is an assistant professor of information and communication sciences

at the Aix-Marseille University in France. His research interests focus principally on

communication, social influence, and social representation.

Fabien Girandola is a professor of social psychology at the Aix-Marseille Universityin France. He conducts research on social influence, cognitive dissonance, and

communication.

Nicolas Guguen is a professor of social behavior at the University of Bretagne-Sud

in France. His research interests focus on atmospherics and consumer behavior and

compliance-gaining procedures.

Robert-Vincent Joule is a professor of social psychology at the Aix-Marseille

University in France. He conducts research on social influence, cognitive dissonance,

and communication.

Documents

Cross Cultural Research 2012 Pascual 394 416