Sequential Request Strategies Chapter 10 Sequential Request Strategies Prepared by Robert Gass & John Seiter Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Pre-Giving Favors and gifts create a sense of indebtedness Regan’s (1971): a confederate, Joe, bought another student a Coke The student was more amenable to purchasing raffle tickets Returning favors is culturally universal Beware of unfair exchanges example: a male buys a female three drinks in a bar. Does she “owe” him anything in return? Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Pregiving illustrations Befriending your neighbor Ned fixes Earl’s sprinkler, then asks to borrow Earl’s lawnmower Political favors Campaign contributions buy access to a politician, if not votes Panhandling tour guides Panhandlers volunteer directions to tourists, then ask for a tip Pregiving in sales A company gives important clients free tickets to a ball game Doing the dishes as “foreplay” A husband does the dishes, hoping to put the wife in a good mood Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Why does pregiving work so well? The liking explanation The pregiver is perceived as a good, kind person Best used when the return favor is for a good cause Physical attractiveness explanation Do-gooders are perceived to be more attractive Perceived ulterior motives explanation Obvious attempts to curry favor are less successful The gratitude explanation The pregiver evokes “good vibes” Best used when the return favor benefits the pregiver Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Why is pregiving so effective? Norm of reciprocity Favors create a sense of indebtedness Impression management: People want to maintain a positive image Internalized social norm: Repaying favors is seen as the right thing to do Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “foot in the door” strategy (FITD) A person who agrees to a small, initial request is more likely to comply with a subsequent larger request Freedman & Fraser’s (1966) classic study initial request: housewives were asked to display a small sign in their window that read “Be a safe driver.” follow-up request: housewives were later asked to display a large billboard that read “Drive Carefully” in the front yard results: 17% of the “control” housewives complied, compared to 76% of the FITD housewives Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Theoretical explanations for the “FITD” Bem’s self-perception theory: People make self- attributions based on their own behavior Gorassini & Olson: Self perception is not the only explanation for the FITD The requestee may consider whether others would reject the request. activating relevant attitudes is important (“you are so thoughtful.” “You are so generous.”) Compliance is lower if a person believes others would be unlikely to comply Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Keys to the FITD strategy Size of the 1st request Must be small enough to ensure compliance, but not so small as to appear trivial Prosocial requests The strategy works best with prosocial causes No external incentives There should be no external inducements such as payment or rewards Who makes the request The 1st and 2nd requests need not be made by the same requester Social labeling Positive labels help activate relevant attitudes Who answers the door People with a high need for consistency are more susceptible People with high self-concept clarity are more susceptible Time Delay A time delay between the 1st and 2nd requests may help activate relevant attitudes Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “foot in the mouth” (FITM) strategy Acknowledging that one is in a good mood predisposes a person to be more agreeable Telemarketers: “How are you today?” Food servers: “What beautiful weather we’re having!” Warm-Up act: “Who’s ready to have fun? I can’t hear you. Who is ready to have some FUN?” Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “door in the face” strategy (DITF) A person is presented with an initial, large request which she/he is inclined to reject The person thereby becomes more likely to acquiesce to a second, more reasonable request. Cialdini & Ascani’s (1976) study: initial request: college dorm residents were asked to donate one unit of blood every two months for a period of three years follow-up request: dorm residents were asked to give blood once, the next day results: compliance for the DITF group was 49%, versus 31% for the control group Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Theoretical explanations for the “DITF” perceptual contrast phenomenon The 2nd request seems much more reasonable by comparison self-presentation explanation The target doesn’t want to be perceived negatively by others reciprocal concessions The target perceives he/she is engaged in a bargaining situation guilt-based explanation The target feels guilty for not being helpful social responsibility position We comply based on our own, internal standards Note: at present, it isn’t clear which of these explanations best accounts for the research findings Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Keys to the DITF strategy Size of the initial request The 1st request must be large enough to be rejected, but not ludicrous Prosocial Requests The strategy works best with prosocial causes Time Delay The 2nd request should follow right after the 1st Who makes the request The 1st and 2nd requests must be made by the same requester Size of the follow-up request The 2nd request must be unambiguously smaller than the 1st Who answers the door DITF works best with “exchange- oriented” people Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “that’s not all” tactic But wait, there’s more…” The “that’s not all strategy” sweetens the deal Free extras add perceived value to an offer “Order now, and I’ll throw in…” Often combined with the scarcity principle “The first 20 callers will also receive…” Effectiveness is based on reciprocity and contrasting Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved The “lowball” tactic The low ball technique Lowballing involves making an offer that sounds too good to be true There may be outright deception; “There was a mistake in the ad, the wine is $19.99 per bottle, not $1.99” There may “hidden strings” attached; the advertised price for a cruise doesn’t include tips, shore excursions, alternative dining, onboard activities, internet, etc. Once the consumer is psychologically committed, it is hard to back out a credit card has a low interest rate, but only for a few months fine print in a low airfare ad (“some restrictions may apply”) car ads that list a low interest “for highly qualified buyers” Effectiveness is based on psychological commitment unfulfilled obligations Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “bait-and-switch” tactic Bait & Switch An offer is made that seems too good to be true When the consumer tries to buy the low-priced item, the item is no longer available The consumer is persuaded to purchase a more expensive item instead The strategy is common in retail sales “Sorry, we’re out of your size, but…” “That model is actually a piece of junk. For just a bit more, you can get…” “Would you like to upgrade that ticket?” Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Low ball vs. bait & switch The low ball tactic changes the original deal or adds conditions to the existing deal The consumer is buying the same product or service, but at a much higher price The low ball operates after the target becomes psychologically committed The bait & switch involves a completely different deal, an alternative product or course of action The consumer winds up buying a different product or service at a higher price The bait lures the target in before she/he is psychologically committed Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “disrupt-then-reframe” (DTR) strategy Disrupting and reframing is a diversionary tactic A quirky statement disrupts cognitive processing “My soccer team’s candy is $5. That’s only 500 pennies.” The disruption inhibits counterarguing. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Legitimizing paltry contributions This strategy pre-empts potential objections “Even a penny will help!” “No donation is too small.” The strategy induces guilt if the target declines The strategy produces a large quantity of smaller donations Donors tend to give more than the minimum, however This strategy may be less effective for requests to donate time, rather than money Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “fear-then relief” procedure The relief that follows a scare can make people more receptive to persuasion Police interrogations often rely on the “good cop, bad cop” routine After a brow-beating by the bad cop, the good cop uses ingratiation to put the suspect at ease The suspect let’s his/her guard down with the good cop Lola’s car is idling roughly. She takes it to her mechanic. The mechanic looks under the hood and mutters, “uh oh…that’s not good.” Lola experiences a moment of panic. She dreads a huge repair bill. “Wait,” the mechanic says, “it’s just a loose spark-plug wire.” Feeling relieved, she says, “Great!” “However,” the mechanic says, “you need new spark plug wires. These are cracking.” Lola is likely to jump at the chance for a smaller repair. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “happiness then disappointment” strategy An emotional see-saw from good to bad also increases compliance The sudden withdrawal of positive emotion disrupts cognitive processing. A person thinks she or he has found a $20 bill on the ground. It turns out to be a flier. Following the disappointment, the person is more likely to comply with a request. The shift in emotions temporarily disrupts cognitive processing. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The “happiness then disappointment” strategy Nawrat and Dalinski’s (2007) study illustrates this approach Some students were led to believe they received an “A” on an assignment The instructor then announced “There’s been a mistake.” Students were then informed the high grade belonged to a student in another class The students were then given their correct grade, a “C.” Students who experienced an emotional see-saw were more likely to volunteer for a school activity, for more hours, than students who weren’t mislead Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The dump-and-chase strategy Persistence pays off A salesperson who counters each objection raised by a customer may wear the customer down Salesperson: “This model of cordless drill is 20% off today.” Customer: “I can’t afford it, even at the sale price.” Salesperson: “No worries, if you apply for a credit account today, you’ll get an extra 15% off.” Customer: “I don’t need any more credit card debt.” Salesperson: “I hear you. What if there were a cheaper model that’s also on sale?” Customer: “Well, maybe. What else have you got?” Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved