The success of the disrupt-then-reframe (DTR) technique (Kardes et al., 2007) Experiment 1 shows that the DTR technique increases retail sales in a supermarket setting. Experiment 2 shows that the DTR technique increases the willingness to pay to join a student interest group. Experiment 3 shows that the DTR technique increases student support for a tuition fee increase.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2020). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [2] The disrupt-then-reframe (DTR) influence technique involves confusing consumers with a disruptive message and then reducing ambiguity by reframing the message.
2. [2] For example, 'the price for note cards is 300 pennies' (disruption/confusing message) then 'that's $3. It's a bargain' (reframe).
3. [2] The confederate (acting as sales personnel) either used the DTR technique OR employed a reframe-only (or request-only portion of the DTR technique) control script.
4. [2] This means that different people were randomly allocated to either the DTR or the re-frame only control condition.
5. [2] Using a repeated measures design would alert any customer to the different techniques (they may become suspicious) and so the second technique would produce either no or invalid results.
6. [2] There might be carry-over effects from the first to the second condition and again the result would not be valid.
7. [4] Advantage: The setting is natural/high ecological validity, e.g. the study is conducted in a supermarket.
8. [4] Example: The participant behaves naturally because they do not know they are participating in a study e.g. each of the confederates introduced himself or herself at a sales stand and the offer (buy candy at a special rate) and then proceeded with the appropriate sales script.
9. [4] Advantage: The task/request is congruous with the setting e.g. confederates made a request (of the participant) to buy a box of candy at a special rate.
10. [4] Example: The sample is more likely to be representative (of age and sex), e.g. people shopping in a supermarket: e.g. (43 males, 104 females) participated in the study. The sample had a mean age of 46 years.
11. [4] Advantage: The sample may be larger than in a laboratory, e.g. 147 persons participated.
12. [5] For: Sales people try to sell, and this is just one technique available from a wide range;
13. [5] For: There are other techniques which involve 'psychological tricks' and this is no better or worse;
14. [5] For: Can walk away if they are not happy or feel they have been manipulated in any way;
15. [5] Against: Participants are 'tricked' (deceived) and this is unethical;
16. [5] Against: Maybe all sales techniques should be reviewed for ‘ethics' such as purchase quantity decisions;
17. [5] Against: A stooge may bias results because of their appearance, their manner, or because of some other feature;
18. [5] Against: This is not a psychological study, which protects participants, but it is real life, with often little or no protection.
19. [5] Conclusion: any appropriate conclusion drawn from the discussion that has been presented. (1 mark)