we will make you like our research

8/10/2019 We Will Make You Like Our Research

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/we-will-make-you-like-our-research 1/24

RUNNING HEAD: WE WILL MAKE YOU LIKE OUR RESEARCH: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASUSCEPTIBILITY TO PERSUASION SCALE

[DRAFT]

We Will Make You Like Our Research:The Development of a Susceptibility-to-Persuasion Scale

David Modica

Ross Anderson b

a,b University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory

JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FD, England

aemail address: [email protected]

(Corresponding author)

Tel: +44 1223 767014

Fax: +44 1223 334678

bemail address: [email protected]



We Will Make You Like Our Research 2

Abstract

Social-psychological and other persuasive mechanisms across diverse contexts are

well researched, yet in general the research focusses on the effectiveness of a specific

persuasive technique. In the present paper, our specific interest lies in the development of a

generalized modular psychometric tool that measures individual susceptibility to persuasion.

This is achieved using items from established and validated particulate scales. We describe

the result of our analysis, a valid and reliable modular psychometric tool that measures

general susceptibility to persuasive techniques.

Keywords

Social psychology, persuasion, scale development, susceptibility

1. Introduction

Individual mechanisms of the social psychology of persuasion have been thoroughly

researched in the past, notably by Cialdini (2001); and Knowles and Linn (2004). The

predominant approach is to focus on a specific mechanism and explore its effect in a specific

context. That this presents only a partial view of persuasive mechanisms has been noted by

several researchers (e.g. Knowles & Linn, 2004). In the present paper we create, test and

validate a unifying scale of Susceptibility to Persuasion (StP-II), which brings together social-

psychological mechanisms that have proven to be applicable across different contexts.

The primary purpose of StP-II is to measure factors that play a role in compliance

with fraudulent offers (i.e. scam compliance). Other applicable areas may include consumer

and marketing psychology and behavioural economics. In preceding research Fischer, Lea,

and Evans (2009) compiled a report for the UK Office of Fair Trading on factors that have an




impact on scam compliance, such as consumers’ need for uniqueness and sensation seeking.

They have also shown that scam compliance can be likened to an error in judgment:

successful persuasion is not directly linked to intelligence but to mechanisms that

momentarily suspend the rational decision-making processes (Fischer, Lea, & Evans, 2013).

As an extension of this, Modic and Lea (2013) investigated the psychological factors

that cause such momentary lapses of judgement. They confirmed that a number of

mechanisms, such as lack of self-control and social influence, play a role in scam compliance.

In addition to testing the mechanisms established by Fischer et al. (2009), Modic and Lea

(2011) explored additional personality traits that affect scam compliance. Agreeableness and

introversion were shown to play a role as well as lack of premeditation (a component of

Impulsivity; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Modic and Lea (2013) findings were in line with

other research in this context, such as Duffield and Grabosky (2001) and Whitty and

Buchanan (2012).

A scale of Susceptibility to Persuasion (StP) was then developed and tested on the

responses of fraud victims (Modic & Lea, 2013). While StP adequately measured scam

compliance, with high factor loadings on various subscales and good reliability, a number of

concerns arose. The initial version of StP was developed from scratch and did not incorporate

previous scale development efforts. Furthermore, its ecological validity was not established

beyond doubt.

This paper continues that work. Various theoretical underpinnings (e.g. Cialdini &

Goldstein, 2004; Goldstein, Martin, & Cialdini, 2008; Knowles & Linn, 2004; Shadel & Pak,

2007) and empirical results (e.g. Fischer et al., 2013; Modic & Lea, 2013; Shadel & Pak,

2007; Titus, Heinzelmann, & Boyle, 1995) have given us the basis for creation, validation

and factorisation of a new scale measuring susceptibility to persuasion (StP-II).




2. Method

2.1 Participants

Our respondents for this study were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk)

between November 2013 and February 2014. There were five sittings, where we collected

between 100 and 200 unique responses each time. Each respondent was paid US $0.35 for

participating and additional US $0.25 if they responded to more than 90% of the scale items.

In three out of five sittings only participants based in the US could answer the questionnaire,

while the other two sittings were open to the world. In total 998 mTurkers responded. Data

files were then screened for duplicates and empty responses, leaving us with 779 unique

respondents who answered most of the scale items.

In the measured group, age was distributed in a curve that resembled normal

distribution with a peak between 31 and 40 years of age (n=203, 26%). Gender was self-

reported as 327 (43%) female and 433 (57%) male (19 respondents refused to answer this

question). Most respondents reported their level of education as BA/BSc or similar (n=398,

52%). Frequency data plotted on a curve also resembled normal distribution. The two most

frequent countries of birth in respondents were India (n=375; 48%) and United States of

America (n=359; 46%). Less than 1% of respondents listed any other country as their birth

place. Country of residence was the same as country of birth for 739 respondents (97%). Out

of the remaining respondents 60% listed US as their country of residence (where they were

living for 5 years or more). More demographics are given in the Results Section. Most of the

respondents reported being employed in the private sector (n = 319, 41%), followed by self-

employment (n=99, 13%) and employment in the public sector (n=99, 13%). Respondents

reported their IT knowledge to be better than average, with 76% scoring themselves more

than 3 on a five point scale (mean = 4.13, SD = 0.989).




2.2 Scale Development

The initial version of the StP-II scale consisted of 138 items in 9 subscales, with 5 of

the initial subscales consisting of further two or three subscales. The salient factors and their

corresponding subscales were picked on the basis of pre-existing empirical and theoretical

research into scam compliance. They are as follows.

Social influence was shown to be an important predictor of scam compliance by

Modic and Lea (2013) in the StP-I. The items used in StP-II have been refined by Batra,

Homer, and Kahle (2001). The initial scale (SNI; 12 items) was developed by Bearden,

Netemeyer, and Teel (1989) and consists of two subscales that measure normative (8 items);

and informative (4 items) social influence. Note that the concept of non-dynamic social

influence is now considered to be somewhat dated, and seen as a mechanism contributing to

social identity theory (Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005; Sassenberg & Jonas, 2007).

Need for Cognition. The concept of individual’s need to ascribe meaning and

purpose to events was first postulated by Cohen, Stotland, and Wolfe (1955) and later

developed by Cacioppo and Petty (1982). The StP-II subscale items were collected from the

NCS scale (18 items) refined by Cacioppo, Petty, and Chuan Feng (1984). Note that need for

cognition has been tied to self-consciousness (Osberg, 1987); and sensation seeking

(Loewenstein, 1994) which both have a tangential bearing on scam compliance (Modic &

Lea, 2013).

Need for Consistency was one of the initial factors influencing compliance postulated

by Fischer et al. (2009). Consistency emerged as a significant predictor in StP-I (Modic &

Lea, 2013) and has been flagged as one of the six basic tendencies that generate a positive




response by (Cialdini (2001)). The StP-II subscale items were taken from PFC-B scale (8

items) developed and validated by Cialdini, Trost, and Newsom (1995).

A scam is in many ways similar to a marketing offer (Fischer et al., 2013) although

the end result of a scam is illegal or exploitative. In advertising in general, persuasive

techniques are employed as discussed for example by Thakor and Goneau-Lessard (2009) and

by Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998). Much recent research has focused on scepticism

towards health-related advertising while general attitudes towards advertising have been

somewhat neglected. Gaski and Etzel (1986) conducteda large survey on consumer attitudes

that includes the Attitude Towards Advertising (ATA) scale that was initially developed by

Bauer, Greyser, Kanter, and Weilbacher (1968) and further modified by Andrews (1989).

ATA has seven items in two subscales measuring Social (3 items) and Economic (4)

dimension. Earlier findings (e.g. Fischer et al., 2013) suggest that attitudes towards

advertising should play a role in scam compliance. That is, people with a more positive

attitude towards advertising will be more likely to go along with a marketing offer, even

though it might be actually a scam.

Sensation Seeking has been shown to influence impulsive behaviour (Whiteside,

Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005), which in turn has an impact on compliance (Modic &

Lea, 2011). In StP-II construction, we faced several options – we could have used a specific

subscale from UPPS-IBS (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) or one of the standalone inventories.

The Sensation-Seeking Scale (SSS-V; Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978) is well

established and the authors are continuously adapting and refining it (e.g. Zuckerman, 2007).

But the format of SSS-V is not suitable for StP-II (it is a forced choice, two-outcome

questionnaire, while all the other subscales in this instrument are measured with Likert-type

variables). Another established sensation-seeking scale is the Arnett Inventory of Sensation




Seeking (AISS; Arnett, 1994). The AISS (20 items) refined by Haynes, Miles, and Clements

(2000) consists of two subscales measuring novelty (10 items); and intensity (10 items). Note

that Haynes et al. (2000) had to remove some AISS items due to low factor loadings. We

encountered similar issues in our analysis.

Self-control is an important predictor of a diverse set of behaviours, for example

victimization in general (Carter, 2001; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Tangney, Baumeister, &

Boone, 2004) and fraud specifically (Holtfreter, Reisig, & Pratt, 2008). In fraud, the ability to

exert self-control reduces the effect of demographic factors such as gender and income

(Holtfreter, Reisig, Leeper Piquero, & Piquero, 2010; Schreck, 1999). Individuals with low

self-control have difficulties controlling their emotions, leaving them vulnerable to errors in

judgment (Tangney et al., 2004) that lead to less than optimal decisions when responding to

scams (Langenderfer & Shimp, 2001). For StP-II we used the 13 items found in the Brief

Scale of Self – Control (BSCS) as listed by Holtfreter et al. (2010) and originally developed

by Tangney et al. (2004).

Lack of Premeditation; or Consideration of Future Consequences is an intrinsic

part of impulsivity (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) and a significant predictor of scam

compliance (Modic & Lea, 2011). For StP-II, we used the 12-item CFC scale developed by

Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, and Edwards (1994) and further confirmed by recent research

(Joireman, Balliet, Sprott, Spangenberg, & Schultz, 2008; Toepoel, 2010).

Need for Uniqueness and Avoidance of Similarity drives certain aspects of

consumer behaviour. Research has shown consumers to be likely to respond positively to

marketing offers when they believed that the goods on offer to be unique or scarce (Folkes,

Martin, & Gupta, 1993; Kramer & Carroll, 2009; Suri, Kohli, & Monroe, 2007). In scam

research, Langenderfer and Shimp (2001) have shown that many scam offers utilize that




phenomenon to great effect. The salient subscale in StP-II was constructed from the 16 item

short form of the Consumer Need for Uniqueness scale (CNFU-S), with four subscales

measuring Creative Choice (4 items), Unpopular Choice (4 items), Avoidance of Similarity (4

items) and Unique Consumption behaviour (4 items) refined by Ruvio, Shoham, and

Makovec-Bren!i! (2008) from the original CNFU (31 items) introduced by Tian, Bearden,

and Hunter (2001).

Risk Preferences Across Contextual Domains (Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002). Risk

preferences have been shown to play a strong role in decision making in general (Slovic,

1987). Recent research suggests that attitudes towards risky choices vary according to the

context (Blais & Weber, 2006; Keinan & Bereby-Meyer, 2012). Thus it would be reasonable

to infer that risk preferences when it comes to fraud would be similar to other domains with

similar characteristics (i.e. finance and ethics). In StP-II we used the full DOSPERT-R scale

established by Weber et al. (2002), but pruned it down to specific reliable and salient domains

in later analysis.

2.3 Design

To control for order effects the items in the relevant sections of the survey were

randomised. The survey was delivered online. All participants answered the exploratory and

demographic questions at the start of the survey.

2.4. Procedure

The survey was delivered online, and consisted of five sequential parts:




1. Introduction to the experiment, with a brief explanation of the structure and our

reasoning for using it; assurance of anonymity; and a request for permission to use the

data in the analysis.

2. Demographic items (gender, age, familiarity with computers, educational level,

country of birth, country of residence, occupational status)

3.

9 Scales: SNI, NCS, PFC-B, AISS, ATA, BSCS, CFC, CNFU-S, DOSPERT-R

4.

Demand characteristics questions, general questions.

5. Debriefing.

3. Results

Initial response data (n=779) were separated into two groups using random sampling.

The Main group contained 500 responses, while the Holdout group contained 279 responses.

The StP-II scale initially consisted of 136 items. The Cronbach alpha score for the whole

scale on the full sample was .960 ("s = .958, n = 779).

3.1 Reliability testing

Prior to exploratory factor analysis each, of the 9 initial scales and their subscales was

tested for reliability. Items that did not contribute to reliability or those that unbalanced the

final StP-II were removed. In three cases (ATA, CNFU and DOSPERT-R) whole subscales

were removed as they were unreliable in the present experiment. In the case of ATA only the

economic dimension was retained. In case of DOSPERT-R, only financial and ethical

domains were kept for further analysis. In CNFU, Avoidance of Similarity emerged as a

separate construct in a subsequent series of exploratory factor analyses, while Unique

Consumer Behaviour proved to be unreliable and was removed. The subscales of Creative

Choice and Unpopular Choice were rolled into a single subscale labelled Choice (the latent




structure was later confirmed through exploratory factor analysis). Each subscale and their

subsequent subscales were tested using the Main and the Holdout samples. The results of the

reliability tests are presented in Table 1. The reliability scores range from adequate (.767) to

high (.909), with the reliability of the whole scale still high (.942 on Holdout sample and .948

on Main sample).

In addition to the development of full StP-II scale, a brief version of the scale (StP-II-

B) was also constructed. This scale was also tested for reliability. The test results are

presented in Table 2. StP-II-B sacrifices preciseness (i.e. in subscales containing further

subscales, the latter are rolled into a single construct / subscale) and a small amount of

reliability (which ranges from .747 to .912) for the sake of brevity and ease of application.

Table 1

Reliability Scores for Susceptibility to Persuasion Scale - II on Holdout (n = 278) and Main (n=500)

Samples

Item [Items] as (Holdout)d nh as (Main)e nm

Premeditation 6 .886 262 .884 476

Consistency 6 .887 259 .889 476

Sensation Seeking 6 .800 265 .782 471

Self-Control 6 .856 263 .855 467

Social Influence 6 .864 264 .861 462

Similarity 4 .899 265 .883 479

Risk Preferences 6 .900 258 .909 472

Attitudes towards Advertising 4 .780 265 .822 481

Need For Cognition 6 .865 263 .893 460

Uniqueness 4 .767 267 .795 479

Full StP-II reliability 54 .942 198 .948 350

Note.a Standardized Cronbach Alpha for the Holdout sample.

b Standardized Cronbach Alpha for the Main sample.




Table 2

Reliability Scores for Susceptibility to Persuasion Scale - II (Brief) on Holdout (n = 278) and Main

(n=500) Samples

Item [Items] as (Holdout)d nh as (Main)e nm

Premeditation 3 .849 267 .842 487

Consistency 3 .813 269 .831 486

Sensation Seeking 3 .777 268 .747 479

Self-Control 3 .800 270 .768 483

Social Influence 3 .901 270 .895 476

Similarity 3 .880 272 .876 484

Risk Preferences 3 .912 261 .911 482

Attitudes towards Advertising 3 .804 269 .830 488

Need For Cognition 3 .833 273 .832 482

Uniqueness 3 .748 268 .826 486

Full StP-II reliability 30 .910 226 .917 389

Note.a Standardized Cronbach Alpha for the Holdout sample.

b Standardized Cronbach Alpha for the Main sample.

Each initial subscale used to construct StP-II was individually explored using factor

analysis (on the Holdout sample) and each of their subscales tested for reliability. Their initial

structures were confirmed with adequate loadings and good reliability. The results of the

analysis are presented in Table S1 in the supplemental materials section.

3.2 Factor Analysis of StP-II on the Main sample

The experimental data were screened for univariate outliers. The minimum amount of

data for factor analysis was satisfied, with a final sample sizes of 500 (Main) and 279

(Holdout) and universally high factor loadings of the Susceptibility to Persuasion – II

subscales (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2005, p. 613) .

The factor structure of the 54 remaining items in StP-II scale items was examined.

Several factorability criteria were used. On the Main sample, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure of sampling adequacy was .934., above the recommended value of .5. Bartlett’s test




of sphericity was significant (!21431 = 18040.91, p < .001). All communalities were above

.321, with 43 items above .5 and 25 above .6.

Principal axis factoring was used as we assumed that a certain part of the variance

would not be explained by the Susceptibility to Persuasion – II scale. Direct Oblimin rotation

was used, as we assumed that certain factors would share variance. Initial eigenvalues showed

that the first factor explained 27% of the variance, the second 9%, the third factor 8% of the

variance, the fourth, fifth and sixth factor 3% of the variance, the seventh, eighth and ninth

factor approximately 2% of the variance and the tenth factor 1% of the variance. The ten-

factor solution (of subscales with eigenvalues > 1) explained 59% of the variance. Factor

loadings for full StP-II scale are listed in Table 3.

The ability to premeditate explained most of the variance (27%). Individuals who are

able to foresee the future consequences of their actions weigh their options carefully before

committing to a certain course of action. Thus, they may be more resistant to the influence of

persuasive techniques. Consistency explained 9% of the variance; individuals with high

scores in this factor feel very strong need for consistency and structure, so they may be more

susceptible to persuasion once they initially committed. Finally, the third factor, sensation

seeking, explained 8% of the variance. Individuals seeking novel and intense experiences will

be more likely to commit to an action if they perceive it as viscerally enticing.




Table 3

Factor Loadings and Communalities Based on a Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin Rotation for 54 items from Susceptibility to Persuasion - II Scale on Main Sample (n = 500)

Ba Item PR CS SS SC SI SM RI AD CG UN

B I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself. .640

My behaviour is only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) outcomes of my actions. .617

I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems because I think the problems will be resolved before they

reach crisis level..600

B I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time. .592

BI only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future problems that may occur at a later date. .762

Since my day to day work has specific outcomes, it is more important to me than behaviour that has distant outcomes. .499

It is important to me that those who know me can predict what I will do. -.641

I want to be described by others as a stable, predictable person. -.731

B The appearance of consistency is an important part of the image I present to the world. -.814

B An important requirement for any friend of mine is personal consistency. -.819

I want my close friends to be predictable. -.665

B I make an effort to appear consistent to others. -.791

B I would like to travel to places that are strange and far away. .700

B I would have enjoyed being one of the first explorers of an unknown land. .675

B If it were possible to visit another planet or the moon for free, I would be among the first to sign up. .753

If I were to go to an amusement park, I would prefer to ride the rollercoaster or other fast rides. .535

In general, I work better when I'm under pressure. .463

I like the feeling of standing next to the edge on a high place and looking down. .527

I have a hard time breaking bad habits..786

B I say inappropriate things. .571

B I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun. .716

Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done. .588

I have trouble concentrating. .593

B Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong. .665

B When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will approve of. -.432

B If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy. -.469

B I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others purchase. -.529

Note. Continued on the next page.




Table 3 (Continued)

B Item PR CS SS SC SI SM RI AD CG UN

If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product. -.728

I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a product class. -.788

I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy. -.754

B When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin to use it less.* -.689

B I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population.* -.790

As a rule, I dislike products or brands that are customarily bought by everyone.* -.683

BThe more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less interested I am in buying it.* -.709

B Betting a day’s income at the horse races. -.803

B Betting a day’s income at a high-stake poker game. -.755

B Betting a day’s income on the outcome of a sporting event. -.779

Passing off somebody else’s work as your own. -.503

Revealing a friend’s secret to someone else. -.452

Leaving your young children alone at home while running an errand. -.534

B Advertising is essential. .581

In general, advertising results in lower prices. .550

B Advertising helps raise our standard of living. .737

B Advertising results in better products for the public. .744

B I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities. .766

B I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I will have to think in depth about something. .672

I like tasks that require little thought once I've learned them. .747

BLearning new ways to think doesn't excite me very much. .599

I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort. .577

It's enough for me that something gets the job done; I don't care how or why it works. .621

B I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot be duplicated. .845

B I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoy being original. .669

B Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in establishing a distinctive image. .621

When it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, I have broken customs and rules. .387

Note. Items marked with * are reverse scored.a

B denotes the brief version of the scale (StP-II-B). Factor loadings < .35 were suppressed.

Legend. PR - Premeditation; CS - Consistency; SS - Sensation Seeking; SC - Self Control; SI - Social Influence; SM - Similarity; RI - Risk Preferences; AD - Attitudes towards Advertising; CG - Need

for Cognition; UN - Uniqueness




3.3 Test-retest reliability

To check for repeatability of StP-II, we ran exploratory factor analysis on the Holdout

group (n = 279) and attempted to extract the same factor structure from this separate sample.

Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation was again used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure of sampling adequacy was .862. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (!21431 =

7155.53, p < .001). A ten-factor structure emerged with the top three factors in the same order

as in the Main group. Initial eigenvalues showed that the first factor explained 26% of the

variance, the second 10%, and the third factor 7% of the variance. The solution explained

60% of the variance. The 54 items loaded in the same factors, although the order of the lesser

factors was slightly changed. Independent sample t-tests were run across the subscales means

to establish whether there were differences between the two groups. No statistically

significant differences were found between the answer means in the two administrations of

the scale (cf. Table 4), leading us to infer that test-retest reliability of the scale was good.




Table 4

Means, Standard Deviations, Extracted Variance, T-Test Values, and Significance of

Differences in StP-II main (n=500) and Holdout (n=279) groups

Subscale Mean SD

Extracted

Variance [%] t pMain

Premeditation 4.15 1.33 26.7

Consistency 5.05 1.21 9.4

Sensation Seeking 4.78 1.24 6.1

Self-control 3.97 1.42 3.5

Social Influence 4.45 1.38 3.2

Similarity 3.73 1.61 3.0

Risk Preferences 2.79 1.65 2.4

Att. to Advertising 4.52 1.40 1.9

Cognition 4.15 1.45 1.5Unique Choice 4.34 1.38 1.2

Total 58.9

Holdout

Premeditation 4.28 1.35 25.7 -1.317 .188

Consistency 5.13 1.17 9.6 -0.952 .341

Sensation Seeking 4.74 1.33 6.5 0.472 .637

Self-control 3.97 1.46 3.0 0.021 .983

Social Influence 4.55 1.42 1.6 -0.947 .344

Similarity 3.71 1.65 3.70.221 .826

Risk Preferences 2.88 1.69 4.5 -0.716 .474

Att. to Advertising 4.54 1.31 2.0 -0.127 .899

Cognition 4.20 1.42 2.2 -0.464 .643

Unique Choice 4.38 1.33 1.2 -0.366 .714

Total 60.1

4. Discussion

We have presented the information on development of an amalgamated scale

measuring Susceptibility to Persuasion. The only existing scale of this scope measuring

Susceptibility to Persuasion is the first version of StP scale developed by Modic and Lea

(2013). The underlying constructs described by the subscales in StP-II, have been extensively

tested and validated through years, lending further validity to StP-II.




The exploratory factor analysis and reliability testing of the respondent data yielded

two scales. StP-II in full contains 10 subscales, spanning over 54 items. Three subscales

contain further subscales offering a more precise insight into specific constructs. StP-II-B is a

brief version of the scale with 10 subscales (30 items), which still measures first order factors,

but removes second order constructs for the sake of brevity and the ability to conduct quick

exploratory diagnostics. Both scales have proven to be reliable and repeatable.




References

Andrews, J. C. (1989). The Dimensionality of Beliefs toward Advertising in General. Journal

of Advertising, 18(1), 26-35. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1989.10673140

Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality

and Individual Differences, 16 (2), 289-296. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90165-1

Batra, R., Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (2001). Values, Susceptibility to Normative

Influence, and Attribute Importance Weights: A Nomological Analysis. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 115-128. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1102_04

Bauer, R. A., Greyser, S. A., Kanter, D. L., & Weilbacher, W. M. (1968). Advertising in

America; the consumer view. Boston,: Division of Research, Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, Harvard University.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of Consumer

Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473-

481.

Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for

adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33-47.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Chuan Feng, K. (1984). The Efficient Assessment of Need for

Cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306.

Carter, H. A. Y. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: a test of self-controltheory* Criminology, 39(3), 707-736.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence : science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA ; London:

Allyn and Bacon.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance andConformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621. doi:

10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The

development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral

implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 318-328. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318

Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for

cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291-294. doi:

10.1037/h0042761




Duffield, G. M., & Grabosky, P. N. (2001, March 2001). The psychology of fraud. Trends

and issues in crime and criminal justice, no. 199, 1-6.

Fischer, P., Lea, S., & Evans, K. (2009). The Psychology of Scams: Provoking and

Commiting Errors of Judgement. Research for the Office of Fair Trading (pp. 260).

Exeter, UK: University of Exeter.

Fischer, P., Lea, S. E. G., & Evans, K. M. (2013). Why do Individuals Respond to Fraudulent

Scam Communication and Lose Money? The Psychological Determinants of Scam

Compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology [in press], 43(10), 2060-2072. doi:DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12158

Folkes, V. S., Martin, I. M., & Gupta, K. (1993). When to Say When: Effects of Supply on

Usage. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 467-477.

Gaski, J. F., & Etzel, M. J. (1986). The Index of Consumer Sentiment Toward Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 71-81.

Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2008). Yes! 50 Scientifically proven ways to

be persuasive. New York, USA: Simon & Schuster.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Haynes, C. A., Miles, J. N. V., & Clements, K. (2000). A confirmatory factor analysis of two

models of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(5), 823-839.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00235-4

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Leeper Piquero, N., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Low Self-Control

and Fraud: Offending, Victimization and Their Overlap. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37 (2), 188-203.

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities and,

fraud victimization. Criminology, 46 (1), 189-220.

Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Schultz, J. (2008). Consideration offuture consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing

between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future sub-scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 15-21.

Keinan, R., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012). "Leaving it to chance"-Passive risk taking in

everyday life. Judgment and Decision Making, 7 (6), 705-715.

Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Resistance and persuasion. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Kramer, T., & Carroll, R. (2009). The effect of incidental out-of-stock options on preferences.

Marketing Letters, 20(2), 197-208. doi: 10.1007/s11002-008-9059-9




Langenderfer, J., & Shimp, T. A. (2001). Consumer vulnerability to scams, swindles, andfraud: A new theory of visceral influences on persuasion. Psychology and Marketing,

18(7), 763-783.

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.

Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1), 75-98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75

Modic, D., & Lea, S. E. G. (2011). How neurotic are scam victims, really? The big five and

Internet scams. Paper presented at the 2011 Conference of the International

Confederation for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics and EconomicPsychology, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Modic, D., & Lea, S. E. G. (2013). Scam Compliance and the Psychology of Persuasion [pre-

print]. Social Sciences Research Network, Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2364464.

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer

Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 159-186. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03

Osberg, T. M. (1987). The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Need for Cognition

Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3), 441.

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Swaab, R. I. (2005). Social influence in small groups: An

interactive model of social identity formation. European Review of Social Psychology,

16 (1), 1-42. doi: 10.1080/10463280440000062

Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Makovec-Bren!i!, M. (2008). Consumers' need for uniqueness:

short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing

Review, 25(1), 33-53. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851872

Sassenberg, K., & Jonas, K. J. (2007). Attitude change and social influence on the net. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 273-289). Oxford ; New York: Oxford

University Press.

Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a

general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16 (3), 633-654.

Shadel, D. P., & Pak, K. B. S. (2007). The Psychology of Consumer Fraud. (PhD), Tillbrook

University, Stanford Center on Longevity.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236 (4799), 280-285.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of

future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (4), 742-752. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.66.4.742




Suri, R., Kohli, C., & Monroe, K. (2007). The effects of perceived scarcity on consumers’ processing of price information. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1),

89-100.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2005). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High Self-Control Predicts Good

Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. Journal of

Personality, 72(2), 271-324.

Thakor, M. V., & Goneau-Lessard, K. (2009). Development of a scale to measure skepticism

of social advertising among adolescents. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1342-

1349. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.10.023

Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: ScaleDevelopment and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66.

Titus, R. M., Heinzelmann, F., & Boyle, J. M. (1995). Victimization of Persons by Fraud.

Crime & Delinquency, 41(1), 54-72.

Toepoel, V. (2010). Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct?

Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 951-956. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.029

Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale:

measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263-290.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using astructural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual

Differences, 30(4), 669-689.

Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005). Validation of theUPPS impulsive behaviour scale: a four-factor model of impulsivity. European

Journal of Personality, 19(7), 559-574. doi: 10.1002/per.556

Whitty, M. T., & Buchanan, T. (2012). The Psychology of the Online Dating Romance Scam.A report for the ESRC. (pp. 23). Leicester, UK: University of Leicester.

Zuckerman, M. (2007). The sensation seeking scale V (SSS-V): Still reliable and valid.

Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1303-1305. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.021

Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and

America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 46 (1), 139-149. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.46.1.139




Appendix - Susceptibility to Persuasion – II scale

Table A1

Susceptibility to Persuasion - II Scale Items

[B]a Item

Premeditation

[B] I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself.

My behavior is only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) outcomes of my actions.

I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems because I think the problems will be resolved before

they reach crisis level.

[B] I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time.

[B]I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future problems that may occur at a later

date.

Since my day to day work has specific outcomes, it is more important to me than behaviour that has distant

outcomes.

Consistency

It is important to me that those who know me can predict what I will do.

I want to be described by others as a stable, predictable person.

[B] The appearance of consistency is an important part of the image I present to the world.

[B] An important requirement for any friend of mine is personal consistency.

I want my close friends to be predictable.

[B] I make an effort to appear consistent to others.

Sensation Seeking

Novelty

[B] I would like to travel to places that are strange and far away.

[B] I would have enjoyed being one of the first explorers of an unknown land.

[B] If it were possible to visit another planet or the moon for free, I would be among the first to sign up.

Intensity

If I were to go to an amusement park, I would prefer to ride the rollercoaster or other fast rides.

In general, I work better when I'm under pressure.

I like the feeling of standing next to the edge on a high place and looking down.

Self-control

I have a hard time breaking bad habits.

[B] I say inappropriate things.

[B] I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun.Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done.

I have trouble concentrating.

[B] Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong.

Note. Continued on the next page.




Table A1 Continued

Social Influence

Normative

[B] When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will approve of.

[B] If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy.

[B] I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others purchase.

Informative

If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product.

I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a product class.

I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy.

Similarity

[B] When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin to use it less.*

[B] I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population.*

As a rule, I dislike products or brands that are customarily bought by everyone.*

[B] The more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less interested I am in buying it.*

Risk Preferences

Financial

[B] Betting a day’s income at the horse races.

[B] Betting a day’s income at a high-stake poker game.

[B] Betting a day’s income on the outcome of a sporting event.

Ethical

Passing off somebody else’s work as your own.

Revealing a friend’s secret to someone else.

Leaving your young children alone at home while running an errand.

Attitudes towards advertising

[B] Advertising is essential.

In general, advertising results in lower prices.

[B] Advertising helps raise our standard of living.

[B] Advertising results in better products for the public.

Need for Cognition

[B]I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking

abilities.

[B] I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.

I like tasks that require little thought once I've learned them.

[B] Learning new ways to think doesn't excite me very much.

I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.

It's enough for me that something gets the job done; I don't care how or why it works.

Need for Unique Choice

[B] I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot be duplicated.

[B] I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoy being original.

[B] Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in establishing a distinctive image.

When it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, I have broken customs and rules.

Note. Items marked with * are reverse scored.a

[B] denotes the brief version of the scale (StP-II-B).Instructions: "Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 7, the strength of your agreement with the following statements:"

we will make you like our research

Documents