We Will Make You Like Our Research

RUNNING HEAD: WE WILL MAKE YOU LIKE OUR RESEARCH: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO PERSUASION SCALE
[DRAFT]
We Will Make You Like Our Research:

The Development of a Susceptibility-to-Persuasion Scale
David Modica
Ross Andersonb
a,b
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FD, England
email address: david.modic@cl.cam.ac.uk

(Corresponding author)
Tel: +44 1223 767014
Fax: +44 1223 334678
email address: ross.anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2446971
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 socialpsychological 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
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2446971
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).
4
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 selfreported 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 selfemployment (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 individuals 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-Breni (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
10
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-IIB) 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
.886
.884
.887
262
259
.889
476
476
Consistency
Sensation Seeking
.800
265
.782
471
Self-Control
.856
263
.855
467
Social Influence
.864
264
.861
462
Similarity
.899
265
.883
479
Risk Preferences
.900
258
.909
472
Attitudes towards Advertising
.780
265
.822
481
Need For Cognition
.865
263
.893
460
Uniqueness
.767
267
.795
479
54
.942
198
.948
350
Full StP-II reliability
Note. a Standardized Cronbach Alpha for the Holdout sample.

b
Standardized Cronbach Alpha for the Main sample.
11
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
Consistency
Sensation Seeking
Self-Control
Social Influence
Similarity
Risk Preferences
Attitudes towards Advertising
Need For Cognition
Uniqueness
Full StP-II reliability
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
30
.849
.813
.777
.800
.901
.880
.912
.804
.833
.748
.910
267
269
268
270
270
272
261
269
273
268
226
.842
.831
.747
.768
.895
.876
.911
.830
.832
.826
.917
487
486
479
483
476
484
482
488
482
486
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. Bartletts test
12
of sphericity was significant (2 1431 = 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 tenfactor 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.
13
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
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
I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time.
.592
I 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
CS
SS
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
The appearance of consistency is an important part of the image I present to the world.
-.814
An important requirement for any friend of mine is personal consistency.
-.819
I want my close friends to be predictable.
-.665
I make an effort to appear consistent to others.
-.791
I would like to travel to places that are strange and far away.
.700
I would have enjoyed being one of the first explorers of an unknown land.
.675
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
SC
SI
I have a hard time breaking bad habits.
.786
I say inappropriate things.
.571
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
Sometimes I cant stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong.
.665
When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will approve of.
-.432
If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy.
-.469
I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others purchase.
-.529
Note. Continued on the next page.
SM
RI
AD
CG
UN
14
Table 3 (Continued)
Item
PR
CS
SS
SC
SI
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
SM
RI
When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin to use it less.*
-.689
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
The more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less interested I am in buying it.*
-.709
Betting a days income at the horse races.
-.803
Betting a days income at a high-stake poker game.
-.755
Betting a days income on the outcome of a sporting event.
-.779
Passing off somebody elses work as your own.
-.503
Revealing a friends secret to someone else.
-.452
Leaving your young children alone at home while running an errand.
-.534
AD
CG
Advertising is essential.
.581
In general, advertising results in lower prices.
.550
Advertising helps raise our standard of living.
.737
Advertising results in better products for the public.
.744
I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.
.766
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
Learning 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
UN
I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot be duplicated.
.845
I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoy being original.
.669
Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in establishing a distinctive image.
.621
.387
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). 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
15
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. Bartletts test of sphericity was significant (2 1431 =
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.
16
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
Extracted
Variance [%]
Mean
SD
Premeditation
Consistency
Sensation Seeking
Self-control
Social Influence
Similarity
Risk Preferences
Att. to Advertising
Cognition
Unique Choice
4.15
5.05
4.78
3.97
4.45
3.73
2.79
4.52
4.15
4.34
1.33
1.21
1.24
1.42
1.38
1.61
1.65
1.40
1.45
1.38
26.7
9.4
6.1
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.2
58.9
Premeditation
Consistency
Sensation Seeking
Self-control
Social Influence
Similarity
Risk Preferences
Att. to Advertising
Cognition
Unique Choice
4.28
5.13
4.74
3.97
4.55
3.71
2.88
4.54
4.20
4.38
1.35
1.17
1.33
1.46
1.42
1.65
1.69
1.31
1.42
1.33
25.7
9.6
6.5
3.0
1.6
3.7
4.5
2.0
2.2
1.2
60.1
Main
Total
Holdout
Total
-1.317
-0.952
0.472
0.021
-0.947
0.221
-0.716
-0.127
-0.464
-0.366
.188
.341
.637
.983
.344
.826
.474
.899
.643
.714
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.
17
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.
18
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 of
Business 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), 473481.
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-control
theory* 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 and
Conformity. 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
19
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 of
future 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
20
Langenderfer, J., & Shimp, T. A. (2001). Consumer vulnerability to scams, swindles, and
fraud: 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 Economic
Psychology, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Modic, D., & Lea, S. E. G. (2013). Scam Compliance and the Psychology of Persuasion [preprint]. 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-Breni, 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: 10.1037/00223514.66.4.742
21
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), 13421349. 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: Scale
Development 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 a
structural 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 the
UPPS 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
22
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]
[B]
I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time.
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 cant stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong.
Note. Continued on the next page.
23
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 days income at the horse races.
[B]
Betting a days income at a high-stake poker game.
[B]
Betting a days income on the outcome of a sporting event.
Ethical
Passing off somebody elses work as your own.
Revealing a friends 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

I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking
[B]
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:"
24

We Will Make You Like Our Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

We Will Make You Like Our Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RUNNING HEAD: WE WILL MAKE YOU LIKE OUR RESEARCH: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO PERSUASION SCALE