Transcript Two Requests

Pre-Request Tactics
Outline
•
•
•
•
Foot-in-the-door technique
Door-in-the-face technique
Research developments
Discussion/applications
Sequence Check List
• As usual, we consider the technique sequence
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Interactional context
Commencement of interaction
Request
Compliance Implication Cues
Schedule & deadline
Compliance test
Opportunity
Consequences
Sequence Check List
• Today’s techniques
– Have two sequences of note
Foot-in-the-Door
• Small then large request
• Pretest—high PFC
• FITD
– Sign a petition for the homeless
– Control
• Large request
– Donate time to canned food drive
– Reminder vs no reminder
73
Compliance with large request
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
41
33
27
30.0
Prior helpfulness focus
No prior helpfulness focus
20.0
10.0
0.0
Control
Foot-in-the-door
Compliance technique
Percentage of participants that complied with the large (target) request as a function of compliance technique
and presence versus absence helpfulness focus. Participants on their way to a laboratory site were approached
and asked to sign a petition or were not given this request. Later, they were given the target request, to spend time
volunteering for a canned food drive, with or without the reminder question, “Are you a helpful person?”. The
combination of the request and the reminder produced a notably elevated level of compliance with the target request.
Foot-in-the-Door
• First request
– Interactional context
•
•
•
•
Selected sample/PFC
Selected interactional site
Relational definition/attitude
Continuous operation and development of attitude from this
point
– Commencement of interaction
• Engagement
– Request
• Clear model—sign petition
• Clear expectation of performance
Foot-in-the-Door
• First request (continued)
– Compliance implication cues
• Nice source
• Worthy cause
– “to give greater consideration to the plight of the homeless “
• Cost clear
• Leaning
– Schedule/deadline/test
• An immediate response was required
– Opportunity to comply
• Petition and time to sign
Foot-in-the-Door
• First request (continued)
– Consequence
• Feedback
– “Thank you for your helpfulness.”
• Impact
– Value expression domain
– Social adjustment domain
– Ego defense domain
• Availability of pertinent attitudes
Foot-in-the-Door
• Second request
– Interactional context
•
•
•
•
Same participants as first request
Took part in revise room
Experimenter-participant relationship
Psychology Club-participant relationship
– Commencement of interaction
• W/ experimenter
• W/ Psychology Club
– Request
• To read and complete the memo seeking volunteers
Foot-in-the-Door
• Second request (continued)
– Compliance implication cues
• “Are you a helpful person?”
– Attitude activation
» Value/social/ego
• Cost implication
– Attitude activation
» Instrumental function
– Leaning now
Foot-in-the-Door
• Second request (continued)
– Schedule and deadline
– Compliance test
• Commitment, not actual volunteering
– Opportunity to respond
Foot-in-the-Door
• Conclusions
Door-in-the-Face
• Nature of the technique
– Proposed account
• Three experimental conditions
– Confederate approached participant with
request(s)
• DITF
• Perceptual contrast
• Control
Door-in-the-Face
• Large request
– We’re currently recruiting university students to work as
voluntary, unpaid counselors at the County Juvenile Detention
Center. The position could require two hours of your time per
week for a minimum of two years. You would be working more in
the line of a Big Brother (Sister) to one of the boys (girls) in the
detention home. Would you be interested in being considered
for one of these positions?
• Small request
– We’re recruiting university students to chaperone a group of
boys (girls) from the County Juvenile Detention Center on a trip
to the zoo. It would be voluntary, unpaid, and would require
about two hours of one afternoon or evening. Would you be
interested in being considered for one of these positions?
Door-in-the-Face
50
50
45
Compliance rate
40
35
25
30
25
16.7
20
15
10
5
0
Door-in-the-face
Perceptual
contrast
No lead request
Experimental condition
• Compliance rate by
experimental
condition, 2nd request
• Perceptual contrast
effect ruled out
• Reciprocal
concessions process
supported
Door-in-the-Face
• First request
– Interactional context
• Unselected sample
• University setting
– People walking alone on university walkways
• Peer-stranger relationship
– Attitude
– Commencement of interaction
• Imposed
• Engagement likely
Door-in-the-Face
• First request (continued)
– Request
• Clear and informative
– Compliance cues
• Cost
– Extremely high
• Worthy cause
• Altruistic confederate
– Leaning
• Some ambivalence
• Refusal
Door-in-the-Face
• First request (continued)
– Schedule/deadline/test
– Opportunity to respond
– Response to large request
• Refusal
– Residual attitudes
• Value expression, social adjustment, ego defense
• Available in memory
Door-in-the-Face
• Second request
– Interactional context
• Prior refusal
• Residual attitudes
– Commencement of interaction
• Continuous with previous large request segment
– Request
• Clear and informative
• Expectation of performance
Door-in-the-Face
• Second request (continued)
– Compliance cues
•
•
•
•
Cost
Worthy cause
Charitable experimenter
Involves caring
– 2nd request, concession by requester
• Leaning at this point
– Ambivalence
– Value expression, social adjustment, ego protection vs
cost
Door-in-the-Face
– Second request (continued)
• Schedule/deadline/test
– Immediate response required
– Commitment to act, not actual volunteering
• Opportunity
– Provided
Door-in-the-Face
• Conclusions
Context
Interaction
Opportunity
Perception
of object
Attitude
Compliance
test
Behavior
Consequences
Context
Interaction
Perception of
object
Opportunity
Attitude
Compliance
test
Behavior
Consequences
Figure 4.1: Multiple requests in social influence. One social influence sequence can serve as a context for a
subsequent influence attempt. This sort of thing occurs in such techniques as foot-in-the-door. In these cases, an
influence source engages a recipient in a formal interactional ritual. The outcome of this event serves as an important
part of the context of a subsequent influence attempt.
Research Developments
Prior Requests
• Discussion
– Applications