Chapter 11

Self-Perception Does Affect How Much People Comply With FITD Requests

A meta-analysis by Burger (1999) suggests that self-perception does affect how much people comply with FITD requests. All research may not indicate this, however, because self-perception is probably not the only process involved. Specifically, Burger noted hat other psychological processes operating in an FITD situation may defeat whatever impact self-perception has. As a result, not all studies will support a self-perception account of the FITD's effectiveness. By way of example, people may be less willing to comply with a request if they think most other people would reject the request. Self-perception probably plays a role in the FITD's effectiveness, but the tactic's success depends on a lot of other factors.

Type of Compliance Sought (FITD)

A meta-analysis by Feeley and colleagues (2012) found that the DITF tactic is not effective when used for self-serving reasons but can increase compliance when use for altruistic (-unselfish) purposes Moreover, the tactic works better when seeking volunteers (EX: to participate in research) than when seeking monetary donations, and for obtaining verbal, rather than behavioral, compliance. Finally, the DITF tactic is more effective than a single request when compliance is more difficult to achieve

Ethical Concerns Surround Influence Tactics

A number of ethical concerns surround the use of influence tactics , perhaps even more so when persuasion involves unpleasant emotions such as fear Remember, just because a tactic is effective dos not mean it is ethical

Why is DITF So Persuasive?

A number of explanations for the persuasiveness of the DITF tactic have been proposed and tested, with some proving better than others: -the perceptual contrast effect -reciprocal concessions -the legitimacy explanation -the guilt-based account -the social responsibility position

Disrupt-Then-Reframe (DTR)

A sequential compliance tactic According to Davis and Knowles (1999), the DTR rests on the assumption that certain requests (EX: asking for charitable donations) create a conflict within persuadees Specifically, persuadees want to help but are also resistant to the expense/effort needed to do so. The DTR overcomes this problem by disrupting the persuadees' resistance How? According to Davis and Knowles, certain confusion techniques (EX: non sequiturs, requests stated in a particular way) can be used to alter people's minds from maintaining resistance Once, that is accomplished, reframing the request with a positive spin (EX: "It's a bargain") works to engage the persuadees' underlying desire to help The DTR and Pique techniques divert people from resisting requests

Hendrickson and Goei Study -> Support for Gratitude, Liking, and Physical Attraction Explanations

A study conducted by Hendrickson and Goei (2009) found support for the gratitude, liking, and physical attraction explanations, at least when a favor was done by a person of low status. Regardless of which explanation holds true in a given situation, pre-giving is a strong strategy that works well arose cultures and persuasive contexts.

Why Does DITF Work So Well?

According to Burger (1986), the "that's-not-all" tactic's effectiveness may be because of the norm of reciprocity and contrast effect. First, because the seller has sweetened the deal by adding on items, the customer may feel obligated to buy the product, thereby reciprocating the seller's action. Second, in contrast to the original deal, the revised deal may seem much better than it would have without the comparison.

Why Low-Balling Works?

According to Burger and Caputo (2015), the effectiveness of the low-ball tactic can be explained by three psychological processes: 1.) commitment to the action 2.) commitment to the person 3.) self-presentation

The Self-Perception Theory

According to this theory, people come to know about their attitudes, emotions, and other internal states by inferring (-concluding) them from their own behavior. For example, if you notice yourself eating a lot of Nutrageous candy bar, you are likely to come to the conclusion that you have a favorable attitude toward chocolate. In other words, you use your behavior to infer your attitude

"But Wait, That's-Not-All" Strategy

After presenting the books and before asking for the sale, the salesperson showed his customers several other items they could receive for free (an atlas, a dictionary, a thesaurus) if they agreed to buy the encyclopedias Perhaps you've observed this strategy in other contexts. The "that's-not-all" tactic seeks compliance by making deals more attractive before persuadees agree to them. For instance, you might have seen commercials for food and vegetable slicers and dicers. Typically, after a demonstration, you're asked, "How much would you pay for this?" Then you're presented with an add-on knife. How much would you pay now? How about if a carrot cleaner were added?

LPC Research is Inconsistent

Although LPC garners a larger number of donations, research is inconsistent on whether the technique lowers the amount of money donated per person Either way, Bolkan and Rains (2015) noted that the technique will still be effective when all-or-none behavior is requested For instance, someone requesting a signed petition might say, "even one signature will help"

Some Explanations Are Favored Over Others

Although all of these explanations have received support, the studies that test them side-by-side favor some explanations over others.

Why the Self-Perception Theory is Not Effective for FITD?

Although some research points to the possibility of self-perception theory as an explanation for the effectiveness of the FITD tactic, other evidence is not so positive. For example, Gorassini and Olson (1995) conducted a study that measured how helpful people perceived themselves to be after complying with a first, small request. They found that although people's self-ratings of helpfulness were affected by compliance of the small request, those changes did not always predict people's compliance with a second, larger request. Moreover, compliance with a second, larger request often occurred without people perceiving themselves as being more helpful. Dillard (1990) argued that results of studies such as these show that more hypothesizing about the FITD tactic is necessary.

The Guilt-Based Account

Argues that refusing an initial, prosocial request leads persuadees to experience guilt, which they attempt to reduce by agreeing to a second request

Low-Ball Tactic

As unethical as the low-ball tactic seems, it is used far more often than might be expected. Credit card issuers, for instance, are known for tempting customers with low introductory "teaser" rates. The problem is that these rate may double or even triple in a few months. Rates on some adjustable mortgages do this too; a few years at a very reasonable rate, then - - BAM! - - a balloon payment is due In the low-ball tactic, persuadees are asked to agree with an attractive request but are expected to agree with a less attractive request later

Social Responsibility and Reciprocal Concessions Have Found the Most Support

Based on analyses of multiple experiments, the social responsibility and reciprocal concessions explanations have found the most support. That said, according to Feeley and his colleagues (2017), perceptual contrast, guilt, and the legitimacy of requests probably contribute to the tactic's effectiveness

Impression Management and Internalized Social Norm

Both are based on the norm of reciprocity (or indebtedness), which states that it is desirable to repay what another person has provided us Impression Management Explanation -> Repaying favors is desirable because it keeps you from looking like an ungrateful freeloader (-moocher) Internalized Social Norm -> Suggests that repaying favors is desirable because it makes people feel good about themselves when they do the right thing

Commitment to the Person (Low-Balling)

Burger and Petty (1981) suggested that people fall victim to the tactic because agreeing with the initial request creates a commitment to the requester In other words, people agree to a second, more costly request because they feel obligated to make good on their promises In support of this hypothesis, Burger and Petty (1981) found that the low-ball tactic works only when the same person who made the first request makes the less attractive request. It does not work when a different person makes the less attractive request.

Why Does Pre-Giving Persuade?

Common explanations for why pre-giving works or doesn't work include liking, physical attraction, perceived ulterior motives, gratitude, impression, and internalized social norms.

Door-in-the-Face Technique (DITF)

DITF is the opposite of FITD DITF works by first making a request so large that it is turned down, then following it up with a second, smaller request Just as with the FITD tactic, compliance with the second request is what the persuader has been aiming for all along The DITF tactic involves making a large request and following up with a smaller one.

Testing DTR's Effectiveness

Davis and Knowles (1999) examined door-to-door salespeople who were trying to sell greeting cards in order to earn money for a worthy charity. The salespeople presented different messages to potential buyers. Some customers received a straightforward sales pitch - - "The cards are $3. It's a bargain" - - whereas other were presented with a slightly peculiar pitch (EX: the DTR technique) - - "The cards are 300 pennies . . . that's $3. It's a bargain." Results of the study indicated that when salespersons used the DTR technique, they sold significantly more cards than when they used the more straightforward approach A meta-analysis of several studies suggests that this technique is effective, particularly when seeking donations in nonprofit contexts.

Dennis Regan Study -> Coca-Cola, Raffle Tickets, and Confederates

Dennis Regan (1971) showed how effective the pre-giving strategy can be. In the study, first-year students at Stanford University who had been asked to participate in an experiment on "aesthetics" (-artistic taste) were seated in a room with another student. What the students had not been told was that the other student was a confederate (-accomplice) planted there by the researcher. After a few minutes, the confederate left the room. When he returned, he was either empty-handed or carrying two Coca-Colas. If he was empty-handed, he simply sat back down. But if he had sodas, he offered one to the research subject and said, "I brought one for you too." Seems nice enough, but there's a catch: later, the plant informs the subject that he was selling raffle tickets for a new high-school gym and would appreciate it if the subject would do him a favor by buying some tickets. Not surprisingly, the result of the study reveled that subjects who had been given a soda ahead of time bought almost twice as many raffle tickets as those who had been given nothing.

Prosocialness of the Request (FITD)

Dillard, Hunter, and Burgoon (1984) found that the FITD tactic is more effective when used for prosocial causes than when it is used for self-serving reasons. With this in mind, the FITD tactic would probably be more useful to social workers trying to raise money to help the homeless than it would be for commissioned salespeople.

Fear-Then-Relief Procedure

Dolinski and Nawrat modeled it after the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Interrogation The assumption underlying the procedure is that fear/relief confuses people which, in turn, leads them to act rather mindlessly Additionally, complying with requests can help them cope with their confusion. As such, they become prone to influence attempts The fear-then-relief procedure uses changes in emotion to confuse and then persuade people

Commitment to the Action (Low-Balling)

EX: When the customer agrees to the initial automobile offer, he/she becomes psychologically committed to the idea of owning the car Thus, even when the reasons for buying the car change, there customer has a hard time altering his/her decision and commitment

Labeling

EX: You donated blood to the Red Cross and a nurse tells you how generous you are and thanks you. A review of studies by Burger (1999) reported that this type of labeling increases that odds that you will comply with larger follow-up requests (EX: to donate blood every month for a year). This finding, of course, is consistent with self-perception theory - - that is, if someone labels you as someone who is helpful, you may begin to see yourself that way and, as a result, act in accordance with your self-perception

The "Good Cop/Bad Guy" Interrogation

First, the "bad cop" mistreats the suspect, humiliating, yelling at, and threatening to do harm. Next, the "good cop" enters the interrogation room, asks the bad cop to chill out, and then woos the suspect into confessing with little more than a cup of coffee and a dose of respect

Low-Ball Tactic

First, the salesperson makes you a deal that looks too good to refuse. Perhaps the car you want is offered for several hundred dollars less than any place you've shopped. Excited, you accept the offer. But then, a number of things might go wrong. For instance, the salesperson might inform you that the quoted price did not include an expensive option (EX: air conditioning) that you thought was included Or, the salesperson might check with his/her manager for approval and later report that the deal was rejected Why? The dealership would lose money if the car were sold so cheap. In short, the original offer is taken back, and you are asked to pay a much higher price for the car.

The Lure -> Shoe Sale

For example, a pair of beautiful shoes marked 40% off is displayed quite conspicuously (-loudly) in a store window. The persuaded customer enters the store with the intention of taking advantage of this exceptional offer, but the salesperson informs him that they are out of the shoe in his size Just when the disappointed customer is ready to leave the store, he is shown a new pair that resembles the shoes on sale but that is being sold at regular price

Size of the Initial Request (DITF)

For the DITF strategy to work, the first request must be large enough to guarantee rejection by the persuadee but no so large as to appear incredible. But is there a right size for the initial request? A study by Even-Chen, Yinon, and Bizman (1978) addressed this question and concluded that the initial request must be large for the DITF to work. However, they noted that the request must not be so large that it summons anger, resentment, or skepticism in the persuadee

Who Makes the Request (FITD)

For the FITD strategy to work, the same person needn't make both the initial and the follow-up requests. Indeed, it is often the case that a person who complies with a request by one person will comply with a second request, even when the second request is made by a different person. Research by Chartrand, Pinckert, and Burger (1999) found that when a different person made the second request, compliance was more likely than when the same person made both requests. This was especially true when there was no time delay between the first and second requests.

Goei and Colleagues Study -> Gratitude Explanation vs. Liking Explanation

Goei and his colleagues conducted a study They tested the liking, gratitude, and indebtedness explanations but depended on whether the person seeking compliance benefited from gaining compliance Specifically, when the person doing a favor was seeking compliance or something that would personally benefit him/her (EX: the person would win $50 by selling a lot of raffle tickets), the gratitude explanation was superior. If, however, the person doing the favor did not personally benefit from compliance (EX: he/she was selling raffle tickets for a good cause), the liking explanation was superior.

Evoking Freedom Technique (A.K.A But You Are Free Technique)

If you've ever heard someone say something like "Feel free to say no" or "I'm asking, not insisting," he/she might have been using this technique In the first study to examine it, pedestrians were approached by an experimenter and asked, "Excuse me ... can I ask for some changes to take the bus, please?" Only 10% of pedestrians complied. However, when the experimenter added the phrase "but you are free to accept or to refuse," not only did compliance rates jump to 47.5%, the average donation was twice as large Since, then a growing body of research indicates that the technique is effective in a large number of contexts. One common explanation for the technique's effectiveness is that it reduces psychological reactance. Specifically, because people react negatively when their freedom is restricted, declaring them "free" leads them to experience less reactance

Receiving vs. Not Receiving A Favor (Burger Study) -> (Internalized Norm Explanation vs. Internalized Social Norm Explanation )

In a study conducted by Burger and colleagues (2009), after receiving or not receiving a favor (an unexpected bottled water), research participants were asked to complete and return a survey Half the participants were told that the person who had done them the favor would be collecting the survey, while the other half were told that they could leave the surveys in a clearly labeled drop-off box Results indicated that participants who had received the favor were more likely to complete the surveys regardless of how they returned the surveys This, of course, supported the internalized social norm explanation over the impression management explanation

Real-World Example of Pre-Giving -> Revealing Passwords

In a study, experimenters pretending to be interviewers gave pedestrians a free package of chocolates before asking them to divulge confidential information such as computer passwords. Remarkable , 47.9% of participants revealed their passwords to complete strangers. That's compared to the (still remarkable) 29.8% who did the same without the lure. Bottom line? That old warning - - "never take candy from strangers" - - is worth paying attention to.

Bait-and-Switch (The Lure) -> Travel Industry

In the travel industry, the lure is used but is commonly referred to as the bait-and-switch technique The bait-and-switch tactic lures people with merchandise that is attractive in order to get them to buy substitute merchandise that is less attractive For instance, a company might advertise an inexpensive vacation package as part of a promotion. However, as many potential travelers discover, very few of these seats or packages are available, and they are often sold out but he time people have committed themselves to the idea of a vacation The only solution is to go home and mope or buy a more expensive option

Legitimizing Paltry Contributions (LPC)

Involves letting people know that very small donations would be acceptable Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) found that adding the phrase "even a penny will help" to request donations increased the percentage of donations that people made to the American Cancer Society Similarly, the phrase "even a single marble will make him/her happy" led more people to donate toys to children from needy families The LPC favors approach minimizes excuses for making a donation

Size of the Initial Request (FITD)

Is getting a person to comply with any request enough to get the person to comply with later requests? Research shows that the initial request should neither be too large nor too small Seligman, Bush, and Kirsch (1976) argued that "the first request must be of sufficient (-enough) size for the foot in the door technique to work." However, the initial request cannot be so large that it is rejected. Thus, the persuader must discover a balance between making a large enough initial request to trigger the FITD effect but not so large that it is declined. For instance, asking for a penny so you might later get a larger donation probably would not work because the penny might be perceived as insignificant. However, asking the average person for $1,000 to being with might be a reach In short, the persuader wants to use the largest possible request that will be accepted

External Incentives to Comply (FITD)

Meta-analyses by Burger (1999) and Dillard and colleagues (1984) indicated that people are less susceptible (-naive) to the FITD tactic if they are offered external incentives for complying with the first request Most researchers use self-perception theory to explain these effects. For example, if you received a gift for agreeing to listen to a timeshare sales pitch, you would not form an impression of yourself as someone who is willing to comply readily (-effortlessly) with requests. You are only complying because you have a material reason for doing so. Thus, because the pre-giving strategy uses external incentives, it may not be a good idea to use it and the FITD strategies together.

Preference for Consistency (FITD)

Most people strive for consistency in their behaviors and attitudes. How does this relate to the FITD tactic? If you agree to an initial request, you should be motivated to behave consistently by also agreeing to a second request. This is especially true if two requests are similar. According to Cialdini, Trost, and Newsom (1995), some people have a greater need for consistency than others. As might be expected, those with a higher need for consistency are more influenced by the FITD tactic than are those who are not. This is especially true when people with a higher need for consistency are reminded of how important consistency is.

The Dump-Then-Chase Technique

Occurs when persuaders persist (-continue) in their influence attempts by addressing obstacles to compliance Persuaders who "won't take no for an answer" and continue to chase compliance by responding to obstacles are using this tactic. "Too expensive?" they might reply. "Lets talk about our layaway plan..." According to some research, the dump-then-chase works just as well and sometimes better than the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face techniques

Why is the LPC Effective?

Originally, the LPC was considered an effective way to fend off excuses like "I can't afford that right now" or "I don't have the money for that." A recent meta-analysis, however, suggests that the LPC is effective for two reasons: 1.) Specifically, the impression management (self-presentation) explanation suggests that people who refuse tiny requests might worry that they'll be perceived as heartless cheapskates. 2.) Meanwhile, the "requester need" explanation suggests that people are more willing to donate because they feel that someone willing to accept exceptionally tiny donations must be especially desperate for help Previous research suggests that LPC is an effective way of accumulating a large number of donations and may be even more effective when combined with other influential techniques (EX: social proof)

The "Just One More" Technique

People are more compliant when they believe they are the last person required to reach a goal So, if you want a survey filled out, you should be more successful if you follow "Would you be willing to take a survey?" with "I just need one more person to take my survey."

The "You Will Probably Refuse, But..." Technique

Perhaps because it is perceived to threaten their freedom to act, people donate more money to charity when the words "You will probably refuse, but..." come before a request

The Four Walls Technique

Persuaders are more successful when you answer "yes" to a list of seemingly innocent questions (EX: "Do you like animals?" "Should animals be well cared for?") before they deliver the target request (EX: "Will you donate to the Humane society")

Persuasion is a Multi-Step Process

Persuasion is not as simple as making a single request or giving one speech. Persuasion, quite frequently, is a process that requires a number of steps.

Pre-Giving

Pre-giving involves trying to get someone to comply by doing favors or giving gifts in advance. Pre-giving involves making a persuadee feel indebted so that he/she will be more compliant. For instance, when supermarkets offer free samples of foods to taste, they are using this strategy And, when service staff are especially helpful (EX: a food server boxes leftovers for you) they are using this approach

Fear-and-Relief Procedure is Effective

Previous research indicates that the procedure is effective For example, studies that have scared people (EX: by blowing police whistles at jaywalkers or leaving "tickets" on illegally parked vehicles) and then relieved them (by having the people see that police weren't the ones blowing the whistle or that the tickets were really just pamphlets), have found that those people are typically more compliant (EX: willing to complete surveys) than people who have not undergone the procedure

Real-World Examples of Pre-Giving -> Panhandlers and Unsuspecting Tourists

Real-world persuaders are known to put the pre-giving tactic to use. For example, in touristy areas of big cities (the Lourve in Paris, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Alamo in San Antonio, the Parthenon in Athens), panhandlers have figured out a tricky way to get donations from unsuspecting tourists. The panhandlers wait a block or two from a well-known tourist attraction. When tourists walk by, clearly headed for the attraction, the panhandlers catch up with them, walk in stride, and continue to "guide" the tourists to their destination. Once there, the panhandlers ask for a donation for the unrequested and unneeded service performed.

Seesawing Emotions Is Not Just Confined to Fear-Then-Relief

Research also suggests that the persuasive effect of seesawing emotions is not just limited to fear-then-relief. Indeed, one study found that a happiness-then-disappointment procedure (EX: finding a store that had originally looked like money) also led people to comply more with later requests

Bait-and-Switch is Effective

Research by Joule and colleagues (1989) indicates that the bait-and-switch is an effective strategy for gaining compliance In one study, these researchers got several students to sign up to participate in a rather interesting and well-paying experiment When the students showed up for the experiment, however, they were told that it had been canceled Even so, these students compared to those who were not lured, were more willing to participate in another experiment that was less interesting and unpaid

When Does DITF Work?

Research tells us that some of the following conditions play an important role in determining the effectiveness of the DITF tactic: -size of the initial request -type of compliance sought -elapsed time between first and second requests -can a different person make the request?

When Does A Foot in the Door Work?

Research tells us that some of the following conditions play an important role in determining the effectiveness of the FITD tactic: -size of the initial request -prosocialness of the request -external incentives (-motives) to comply -who makes the request -labeling -self-concept clarity

Can A Different Person Make the Second Request? (DITF)

Researchers who support the RECIPROCAL CONCESSIONS EXPLANATION like to point out that the DITF strategy does not work if the first and second requests are made by different people. Indeed, if a door-to-door salesperson offers you a vacuum cleaner for $500, and a different salesperson offers you the appliance for $300, you might perceive a contrast but not a concession. However, if the same salesperson made both offers, you might be more likely to reciprocate the concession and comply with the second offer

Elapsed Time Between A First and Second Requests (DITF)

Several reviews of studies on the DITF argue that compliance is increased when the delay between the two requests is short By way of example, Gueguen, Jacob, and Meineri (2011) found that restaurant customers who had refused invitations to order dessert were likely to accept invitations to order tea or coffee, especially when the follow-up occurred immediately after the refusal rather than three minutes later

The Pique Technique

Similar to the DTR but simpler The pique technique also involves making a peculiar request For example, in the first examination of the technique, a woman posing as a vagrant (-a person with no permanent home and often with no means of support) asked passerby for "a quarter," "any change," or, more oddly, for "17 cents," or "37 cents" Results indicated that the more unusual requests (EX: 17 and 37 cents) were more persuasive, perhaps because they, like the DTR, disrupt people's refusal scripts. A recent meta-analyses indicates that the pique technique is especially persuasive when smaller amounts of money are requested, when accompanied by a legitimate reason for making the request, and when used in France

Low-Ball Tactic -> Slimy But Effective

Slimy? You bet. But also very effective. Indeed, two meta-analyses of multiple experiments found that the low-ball tactic increased compliance significantly For instance, in one study, Cialdini and colleagues wanted to see if they could get undergraduate students to wake up early. Here's what happened: Some students were simply asked to participate in a "thinking" experiment at seven in the morning. Others, however, were asked to participate but were not told when the experiment would take place. If they agreed to participate, they were told the time of the experiment and asked if they were still willing to participate. In other words, the second group of students was LOWBALLED. Results of the study showed that although only 31% of non-lowballed students agreed to participate, 56% of the lowballed students agreed

Self-Concept Clarity (FITD)

Some people have a clearer picture of their self-concept than others. These people are said to have "high self-concept clarity." Interestingly, research shows that these individuals are more affected by the FITD tactic than are people with a fuzzier idea of self. Why? It turns out that people with high-self concept clarity are more likely to change their self-concepts. As such, after complying with an. initial request, they are more likely than people with low self-concept clarity to see themselves as helpful and, in turn, comply with a second request.

First Study to Demonstrate Effectiveness of FITD

Study was conducted by Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser (1966) at Stanford University These researchers were interested in finding out if they could get housewives to agree to a very large request. Specifically, they asked housewives to allow a team of five or is mine into their homes for two hours. The men, they were told, would have complete freedom in the house to go through the cupboards and storage spaces in order to classify all of the household products that were there. Before being approached with this request, however, some of the women were set-up with a smaller initial request. That is, three days before making the large request, the researchers called some of the housewives and asked if they would participate in a survey about household products (EX: "What brand of soap do you use?"). Surprisingly, about 50% of the housewives who agreed to answer the survey also agreed to let complete strangers rummage through their houses. However, when the researchers had not approached the housewives with a smaller request first, only about 25% of the housewives agreed to the following larger request.

The Physical Attraction Explanation

Suggests that doing favors leads people to be seen as more attractive, which, in turn, leads them to be more persuasive.

The Legitimacy Explanation

Suggests that making concessions (-adjustments) can signal that a persuader has a greater need for compliance (EX: the persuader is making a genuine request), which, in turn, engenders (-causes to happen) a greater obligation to help the persuader

The Perceptual Contrast Effect

Suggests that people are likely to comply with a second, smaller request because, compared to the initial, larger request, the second request seems much smaller than it normally would have EX: A $500 diamond ring seems inexpensive compared to the $3,000 rings but expensive compared to the $100 rings

Self-Presentation (Low-Balling)

Suggests that people want to be seen in a favorable light. As such, they comply with requests to avoid looking bad If that's the case, Gueguen and Pascual (2014) wondered how people might respond if asked to comply with requests that were associated with illegal behavior - - the idea being that people should be less motivated to look good in the eyes of the "deviant" (-abnormal) persuaders To find out, cigarette-smoking pedestrians were approached in one of two ways. In the low-ball condition, a researcher said "I see that you are smoking a cigarette and I wonder if you could give me a light for my cigarette." If the pedestrians agreed, the researcher lowballed them by pulling out a large cannabis joint, which was illegal to smoke in the study's location. In another condition, a researcher produced the cannabis joint before asking for a light. What were the results? Lowballed pedestrians complied more than pedestrians who were not lowballed, leading Gueguen and Pascual (2014) to conduce that, compared to commitment, self-presentation is a weaker explanation for the effectiveness of the low-ball tactic

The Liking Explanation

Suggests that people who do or give something are perceived as kind and good. As a result, they are well liked, and, in turn, more persuasive.

The Gratitude Explanation

Suggests that receiving a favor leads to positive emotional states (EX: feelings of gratitude) that motivate benevolent (-kind) behavior In other words, people comply because the favor creates a spirit of thankfulness and benevolence

The Social Responsibility Position

Suggests that we think it is socially responsible to help people who deserve it. As such, we're more likely to comply when follow-up messages ask for our help.

The Perceived Ulterior Motives Explanation

Suggests that when a favor is seen as a tool of manipulation, it is less likely to lead to compliance. Indeed, Groves, Cialdini, and Couper (1992) argued that pre-giving actually decreases compliance when it is perceived as a bribe or pressure tactic.

The Self-Presentation Explanation

Suggests that when people reject an initial request, they become concerned that they will be perceived negatively and thus comply with a second request in order to make themselves look better

Reciprocal Concessions

Suggests that, when a persuader employing the DITF tactic makes a concession (-adjustment) by following up with a smaller request, we may be motivated to reciprocate (-exchange) the favor by complying with the second request

"That's-Not-All" Can Include More Than Adding On Things

The "that's-not-all" tactic can include more than adding on items to make a deal look better; it can also involve lowering the price of an item For example, Burger (1986) found that more people bought cupcakes when the price was dropped from $1 to 75 cents In this form, the "that's-not-all" tactic is a lot like the DITF approach

Why is the Foot-In-The-Door So Persuasive?

The FITD appears to be a robust tactic that is effective given the right conditions. What makes the FITD so persuasive is based on Bem's (1972) self-perception theory. When you agree to comply with a small request, you see yourself as an unselfish person who is likely to help. Once you form that impression, you are motivated to behave I a manner consistent with that impression. Thus, when a larger request is made, you are more likely to comply.

Difference Between DITF and "That's-Not-All"

The difference is that, when using the DITF approach, the persuader waits for the initial request to be rejected before following up with a lesser request Persuaders not using the "that's-not-all" tactic do not wait for the initial request to be rejected before sweetening the deal. Some evidence indicates that of the two techniques, the "that's-not-all" tactic is the more persuasive. Even so, salespeople or others wishing to use this tactic need to be careful. Some evidence suggests that it might backfire if the salesperson's initial request is too large. It's not too difficult to imagine why. For example, if a salesperson asked you to buy a chocolate chip cookie for $5 and then lowered the price to 75 cents, you'd probably be suspicious that the initial price was purposely inflated (-bloated) and that the salesperson was tiring to pull a fast one.

First Experimental DITF Study

The first empirical study of the DITF tactic was conducted by Robert Cialdini and his colleagues To visualize this study, imagine what you would do if someone approached you, identified herself as a representative of a youth-counseling program, and asked if you'd be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a one day visit to the zoo If you were like most of the people in the study (83%), you would refuse the request It turns out, however, that people were much more reactive to the request if something happened beforehand Specifically, when people were asked to volunteer two hours per week counseling juvenile delinquents for a minimum of two years, and then asked to chaperone the delinquents on the zoo trip, they were three times more likely to serve as chaperones In other words, people were more likely to do a smaller favor (zoo chaperone) after refusing to do a large favor (counseling twice a week for up to two years) first. Since the 1975 study of Cialdini and his colleagues, the effectiveness of the DITF tactic has been demonstrated again and again.

Low-Ball vs. Bait-and-Switch Techniques

The low-ball and bait-and-switch tactics are similar in that both lead the customer on before pulling the rug out How do the two differ? With the low-ball technique the customer is still buying the product he/she wanted, but at a higher cost. There are "strings attached" to the deal or "fine print" that drives up the cost With the bait-and-switch, the customer is buying a different product altogether, often at a higher price or of lower quality. The product she/he wanted is sold out or out of stock

Real-World Example of Pre-Giving -> Women Allowing Men to Buy Them Drinks

The next time a man asks you if he can buy you a drink, woman beware! A study by George, Gournic, and McAfee (1988) found that if women allow men to buy them drinks, both men and women perceive the women to be more sexually available than if the drinks are refused.

Real-World Examples of Pre-Giving -> Suit Pressing

The pre-giving tactic works in other circumstances as well. For instance, as a suit salesperson, one of the authors was trained to ask customers if they would like to have their jackets pressed while they are shopping. Very few refused the favor, and even those who did were cheerfully surprised at the offer. What they did not understand was that there was a hidden reasoning behind the gesture; not only was it an effective means of getting customers to spend more time shopping, but when it came to purchasing a suit, who better to buy from then the nice salesperson who had already done them a favor?

Foot-In-The-Door Strategy (FITD)

The tactic involves making a small request first and then making a second, larger request. Of course, it is the second, larger request that most interests the persuader. The first, small request is merely a setup. For instance, an encyclopedia salesperson asking people if they would answer a short survey before he asked for a sale. He didn't really care about their responses to the survey; he simply wanted to soften them up. When people comply with a smaller request, if often makes them more likely to comply with a second, larger request. FITD involves making a small request and following up with a large one.

The Lure

This tactic is frequently used when goods are put on sale

Cookie Purchasing Study-> But Wait .... That's Not All

To see whether this tactic was effective, Jerry Burger (1896) conducted several studies. In one, the tactic was used on customers at a bake sale. When customers asked about the price of a cupcake, they were told one of two things. Some customers were told that a cupcake and two cookies sold for 75 cents Other customers, however, were not told about the cookies right away - - a few seconds after they 'd been told that the cupcakes sold for 75 cents each, it was explained that the price included two cookies Results of the showed that the "that's-not-all" tactic sold more cupcakes Specifically, although only 40% of the customers who had been presented cookies and cupcakes at the same time made a purchase, 73% of the "that's-not-all" customers made a purchase.

The Foot-in-the-Mouth Procedure

Works by getting people to admit to feeling terrific and then trying to get them to behave in a way consistent with their declaration Donation seekers are especially successful if they ask people how they are feeling, acknowledge the response, and then request compliance. Thus, when a phone solicitor asks, "How are you?," you might be putting your foot in your mouth by replying "Great!"