Sequential Request
Strategies
How to open doors…and slam them
1
Pre-Giving



Favors and gifts create a sense of
indebtedness.
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?
2
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
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.
◦ Panhandlers volunteer directions
to tourists, then ask for a tip.
3
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.

The gratitude explanation
◦ The pregiver evokes “good vibes.”
◦ Best used when the return favor benefits the pregiver.

Norm of reciprocity
◦ Favors create a sense of indebtedness.
◦ Impression management: People want to maintain a
positive image.
◦ Internalized social norm: Repaying favors is the right
thing to do.
4
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.
5
Theoretical explanations
for the “FITD”

Bem’s self-perception theory: People make selfattributions 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.”)
6
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
◦ Positive labels help activate
relevant attitudes.

External incentives
◦ People with high selfclarity are more
susceptible.
◦ 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.
Who answers the door
◦ People with a high need
for consistency are more
susceptible.
◦ The strategy works best with
prosocial causes.

Social labeling

Time Delay
◦ A time delay between the
1st and 2nd requests helps
activate relevant attitudes.
7
The “foot in the mouth”
strategy

Foot in the mouth:

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?”
8
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.
9
Theoretical explanations
for the “DITF”

perceptual contrast phenomenon
◦ The 2nd request seems much more reasonable by comparison.

reciprocal concessions
◦ The target perceives he/she is engaged in a bargaining situation.

self-presentation explanation
◦ The target doesn’t want to be perceived negatively by others.

social responsibility position
◦ We comply based on our own, internal standards

guilt-based explanation
◦ The target feels guilty for not being helpful.

Note: at present, it isn’t clear which of these explanations best
accounts for the research findings
10
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 must
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.
11
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
12
The “lowball” tactic

The low ball technique

Lowballing involves making an offer that sounds
too good to be true.

There are, however, hidden “strings” attached.

Once the consumer is psychologically
committed, it is hard to back out.
◦ zero down car sales
◦ A credit card has a low interest rate, but only for a
few months.
◦ fine print in a low airfare ad (“restrictions may apply”)

Effectiveness is based on psychological
commitment and unfulfilled obligations
13
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 lowpriced item, the item is no longer
available.

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?”
14
Low ball versus bait & switch


The low ball tactic
changes the original deal
or adds conditions to the
existing deal.
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 bait lures the target in
before she/he is
psychologically committed.
15
The “disrupt-then-reframe”
strategy


Disrupting and
reframing is a
diversionary tactic.
A quirky statement
disrupts cognitive
processing.

The disruption
inhibits
counterarguing.
◦ “My soccer team’s
candy is $5. That’s
only 500 pennies.”
16
Legitimizing paltry contributions

This strategy preempts 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 far more than
a penny, however.
17
The “fear-then relief” strategy

Following a
scare, the relief
people feel
makes them
more
compliant.
◦ Police
interrogations
often rely on the
“good cop, bad
cop” routine.

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.
18
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.
19
The “happiness then
disappointment” strategy



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. Nawrat &
Dolinski, 2007)
20