Persuasive Techniques

Conformity

  • Definition: Encouraging compliance by exploiting needs for consistency and reciprocation.

Consistency-Based Techniques

  • Definition: Techniques that explore how the fear of being inconsistent can lead individuals to comply with requests.

1. Lowball Technique

  • Steps:

    1. Get your target to commit to some deal.

    2. Change the terms of that deal after the commitment has been made.

  • Key Study: Burger & Petty (1981)

    • Condition: Both requests must be made by the same person.

  • Research Example: Cialdini et al. (1978)

Cialdini et al. (1978) - Results

  • Graph Representation: Shows the comparison of percentage agreeing to an early morning request (7am) under different conditions:

    • Control Group (Pre-Commitment): % agreeing to the 7am start

    • Experimental Group (Post-Commitment Lowball): % agreeing to the 7am start

  • Findings indicate heightened compliance after commitment is made.

2. Foot in the Door (FITD) Technique

  • Steps:

    1. Ask for something small to gain initial compliance.

    2. After securing the small agreement, ask the same target for something larger.

  • Distinction from Lowballing: While lowballing manipulates the terms after a commitment, FITD starts with an initial small request.

Freedman & Fraser (1966) - Experiment 1

  • Research Questions:

    1. Does the FITD technique work?

    2. How does the FITD technique work?

  • Conditions included:

    • Performance of the small request:

    • One contact, control, agree-only, familiarity-only.

  • Compliance Measurement: At Time 2, measure compliance concerning large request after initial agreement at Time 1.

Experiment 1 Results

  • Compliance Rates (% complying with the large request) visualized in a graph:

    • Results:

    • Performance Condition: n.s. (non-significant)

    • Agree-Only Condition: Statistics vary 0-60%

    • Familiarity Condition: Statistics vary 0-60%

Freedman & Fraser (1966) - Experiment 2

  • Experiment 2 Research Questions:

    1. Does the FITD work when the requesters at Time 1 and Time 2 are different?

    2. Does the FITD still work when the issues at Time 1 and Time 2 are different?

  • Conditions included:

    • Experimental (Same Issue): Safe Driving

    • Control Group: One contact

    • Experimental (Different Issues): Keep CA Beautiful vs. Safe Driving

Experiment 2 Results

  • Compliance Rates (% complying with large request) illustrated:

    • Control: Rates observed.

    • Conditions of Similar Issues vs Different Issues: Variability in compliance 0-80%.

Summary: Freedman & Fraser Findings

  • Points Derived from Experiments:

    • The target must actually perform the small favor at Time 1 to improve compliance (Experiment 1).

    • Familiarity with the requester is not significant for compliance (Experiment 1).

    • The requester does not need to be the same at Times 1 and 2 (Experiment 2).

    • The request does not need to be identical across Times 1 and 2 (Experiment 2).

More About Foot in the Door

  • Study Insight: Number of “feet” in the door correlates with response strength (Arbuthnot et al., 1977).

  • Enhancement: The addition of the “but you are free” (BYAF) technique compounds effectiveness of FITD.

Gueguen & Pascual (2000; 2005) Figures

  • Compliance Rates (%):

    • Change (2000) vs. Survey (2005) compared.

    • Results vary 0-100% compliance.

Reciprocation-Based Techniques

  • Definition: Techniques exploiting the societal need for reciprocation to encourage compliance.

The Reciprocation Rule

  • Concept explanation based on Regan (1971):

    • Investigates the influence of favor received on compliance with future requests.

  • Independent Variable (IV): Receipt of a favor (Coke vs. No Coke).

  • Dependent Variables (DV):

    • Number of raffle tickets bought.

    • Participant's liking for the requester (Joe).

Regan (1971) Results

  • Findings indicate that those receiving the Coke (favor) displayed a higher liking for Joe, increasing the likelihood of purchasing tickets:

    • No-Coke Condition vs. Coke Condition:

    • Tickets bought and liking metrics visualized (but note data are fake for illustration).

Rejection-Then-Retreat Technique

  • Also known as the “Door in the Face” Technique.

  • Three Steps to this technique:

    1. Start with a large favor request.

    2. When turned down, immediately follow with a smaller favor request.

Experimental Evidence: Cialdini et al. (1975)

  • IV: Testing if a large favor request is posed first (Yes vs No).

  • DV: Measuring percentage willing to comply with the smaller favor request.

  • Results vary from 0-50% compliance based on conditions.

Summary of Findings

  • Persuasive techniques effectively enhance compliance through the exploitation of individuals' needs for consistency and the reciprocal nature of favors.

  • Techniques such as FITD and Door in the Face are particularly powerful in changing behaviors.