Dump-and-Chase
Running Head: DUMP-AND-CHASE
Dump-and-Chase: The effectiveness of persistence as a compliance-gaining strategy.
Franklin J. Boster, Mikayla Hughes, Michael R. Kotowski,
Renee E. Strom, Allison S. Shaw, Leslie Deatrick, and Chiharu Kato
Michigan State University
Keywords: Compliance-gaining, Sequential strategies, Persistence
1
Dump-and-Chase
2
Abstract
Two field experiments were performed to assess the effectiveness of the dump-and-chase (DAC),
a compliance-gaining technique that introduces a particular method of employing persistence to
influence others. The outcomes of these two experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the
DAC relative to other compliance-gaining techniques known to be effective. In Experiment 1 the
DAC was found to be more effective than the pooled data from the door-in-the-face (DITF)
technique and the placebic information (PI) technique. In Experiment 2 the DAC was found to be
more effective than the DITF, PI, and foot-in-the-door (FITD) techniques. The effect of the DAC
was consistent across experiments, as well as producing relatively higher compliance-gaining
rates. Moreover, because the contextual features of two experiments differed substantially, the
effect occurred under heterogeneous conditions. Directions for subsequent tests of the DAC are
discussed.
Dump-and-Chase
3
Dump-and-Chase: The effectiveness of persistence as a compliance-gaining strategy.
Although conventional wisdom suggests that persistence is an effective means of gaining
compliance, little research has examined the matter (Boster, Levine, & Kazoleas, 1993). In a
study examining the impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on compliancegaining message selection, Boster et al. (1993) found that those who are highly argumentative,
but low in verbal aggression, persist more than others when attempting to gain compliance. Other
studies investigating social influence tactics have found message recommendations to be more
effective when they are presented with little verbal aggression, but in a persistent manner. For
example, Milgram’s (1974) participants were instructed to administer electric shocks when they
thought that another participant (actually a confederate) had given an incorrect answer on a
paired associate learning task. If the participant refused, Milgram followed with a probe asserting
that the participant must continue for the sake of the experiment and administer another shock. If
the participant continued to refuse, Milgram continued sending probes designed to gain the
participant’s compliance. Uniformly, these probes were low in verbal aggressiveness, and the
compliance rate in the experiment was extremely high (Milgram, 1974). The Boster et al. (1993)
and Milgram (1974) studies suggest that if persons were more persistent, they would be more
effective in their compliance gaining efforts. Building on these investigations, this study
examines the issue of the effectiveness of persistence as a compliance-gaining strategy.
The effectiveness of persistence, in the form of message repetition, has been investigated
in persuasion experiments, and has been found to change attitudes substantially. Wilson and
Miller (1968) provide evidence that an increase in message repetition increases conformity to
message recommendations. Cacioppo and Petty (1979) report that as message repetition
increased from one to three exposures, conformity to message recommendations increased, but
Dump-and-Chase
4
an additional increase to a total of five exposures led to a decrease in conformity to message
recommendations. These two studies demonstrate that at least moderate persistence is an
effective way to persuade. Thus, one form of persistence, message repetition, enhances the
effectiveness of social influence attempts (see, Weiss, 1969; Wilson & Miller, 1968; Zajonc,
1968).
Moreover, structural features of persistence may affect whether compliance is gained. For
example, increasing the number of people who endorse a position increases agreement with that
position (e.g., Asch, 1951; White, 1975), and increasing the number of arguments associated
with a position enhances agreement with that position (Calder, Insko, & Yandell, 1974).
Furthermore, Harkins and Petty (1981) demonstrate that multiple messages transmitted from
multiple sources produce more conformity to message recommendations than do single messages
repeated by a single source, multiple messages from a single source, or single messages repeated
by multiple sources. Although the reason(s) for the multiple source/multiple message effect has
not been determined conclusively, it has been replicated (Harkins & Petty, 1981, 1987).
At least two important consequences emerge from a compliance-gaining attempt.
Obtaining the target’s compliance is one measure of success. On the other hand, the influencing
agent’s ability to maintain a positive relationship with the target constitutes a second measure of
success (Dillard, 1990; Goffman, 1952). The relationship between these two criteria is unknown.
Nevertheless, one can certainly conjure up scenarios in which getting one’s way results in
negative feelings between the influence agent and the target, and persistence, as a tactic, is
susceptible to producing this outcome. Research on positive versus negative persistence is
consistent with this reasoning (e.g., Ifert & Roloff, 1998; Kowalski, 2001; Roloff & Jordan,
1991). Nagging, an example of negative persistence (e.g., being rude by repeating a request until
Dump-and-Chase
5
the person complies), is aptly referred to as an aversive interpersonal behavior (Kowalski, 1997,
2001). Evidence of the negativity of nagging can be seen in Heavy, Layne, and Christensen’s
(1993) Conflict Rating System (CRS). The CRS consists of 15 behavioral dimensions, and
nagging is grouped with pressure for change along with demands and requests as a negatively
valenced conflict management tactic.
If the influencing agent’s message behavior is viewed negatively, then exchanges can
become progressively negative and retaliatory. Research on retaliatory exchanges demonstrates
that parties will often exchange messages that are valenced similarly (e.g., a blunt request is
followed by a blunt response) (Foa, Turner & Foa, 1972; Youngs, 1986). Put differently, if a
negative request is made (e.g., someone requests a favor in a nagging tone of voice), it is likely
that the target will respond in a negative manner (e.g., mimic the nagging tone in the reply). This
segment of the interaction may affect the influencing agent’s subsequent message behavior such
that a follow-up request may be more negative than the first. This response can produce an
increasingly negatively valenced spiral of compliance-gaining attempts and refusals which can
decrease the affect between the actor and target.
The Process of Persistence
Consider a compliance-gaining encounter in which the influencing agent begins with a
direct request for compliance. In response to the direct request the target can choose either to
comply with the request (i.e., success) or refuse it (i.e., lack of success). If the respondent
complies with the request, there is no need to make additional compliance-gaining requests. A
refusal, however, is more complex because the target can refuse in at least one of two ways. A
rebuff is a blunt, unelaborated refusal; whereas, an obstacle is a refusal followed by the target
providing a reason for not complying (Ifert & Roloff, 1998; Roloff & Jordon, 1991).
Dump-and-Chase
6
The rebuff/obstacle distinction is important because the nature of the refusal has different
effects on the compliance-gaining messages that follow. When presented with rebuffs, the
influence agent’s response has a higher likelihood of being rude, aggressive, and forceful
compared with the initial appeal, outcomes that are reportedly governed by the influence agent’s
standards for acceptable messages (Ifert & Roloff, 1998). In contrast, when presented with
obstacles, influence agents are more likely to respond in an adaptive manner (Francik & Clark,
1985). Thus, one potentially effective step in gaining compliance is attempting to transform a
rebuff into an obstacle. In order to keep the rebuff from initiating a negatively valenced spiraling
interaction, influencing agents need only ask targets why they cannot comply, e.g., “Why not?”
Thus, the why not question allows the influencing agent to continue pursuing compliance in a
manner unlikely to be perceived unfavorably by the target. This sequence is the crux of a
compliance-gaining technique termed the dump-and-chase (DAC). Notably, this technique is
sequential, as are a number of other known effective techniques (e.g., foot-in-the-door, door-inthe-face, low-balling, etc.), with the influencing agent’s message behavior contingent upon the
target’s response. If the initial direct request gains compliance, then the influencing agent’s goal
is attained. If the target raises an obstacle in response to the initial direct request, then the
influencing agent generates a second message designed to overcome the obstacle and gain the
target’s compliance. If the initial direct request yields a rebuff, then the influencing agent
attempts to transform the rebuff into an obstacle by asking, “Why not,” and proceeds to address
any obstacles that the target might mention. Figure 1 presents a visual depiction of the DAC
strategy.
Dump-and-Chase
7
Why the Dump-and-Chase May Be Effective
At minimum, an explanation for the effectiveness of the DAC must specify the variables
that represent the mechanism(s) mediating the relationship between the message and potential
outcomes, particularly compliance. It is possible that there is more than one such mechanism.
One possible mechanism is urgency. The structure of the DAC technique may require that
the target be asked repeatedly to comply. Asking repeatedly for a favor can lead to the target
forming the impression that compliance is urgent. A sense of urgency to complete the task
implies time there is a limited time frame in which to perform the task. The scarcity principle
posits that a decrease in an object’s availability results in a proportional increase in its value
(Cialdini, 2001). Extending this principle and research involving scarce resources it follows that
people can be expected to place more importance on completing tasks with a limited completion
frame (see, Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Therefore, to the extent that time is perceived as a
scarce resource, the apparent importance of the request to the influencing agent increases with
increasing scarcity, and, ceteris paribus, targets are more likely to comply with important
requests. Therefore, one mechanism by which the DAC might increase compliance is the
perceived pressing need for compliance implied in the structure of the technique.
A second potential mechanism is guilt, an unpleasant emotional state characterized by
feelings of perceived judgment about an action induced in the target by the DAC. Research has
demonstrated that inducing guilt is an effective technique for gaining compliance (e.g., Carlsmith
& Gross, 1969; Freedman, Wallington, & Bless, 1967) and helping behavior (Cunningham,
Steinberg, Grev, 1980). Furthermore, after responding to a guilt appeal by helping, people report
enhanced self-evaluations and being in more positive moods (Williamson & Clarke, 1989). Thus,
the effectiveness of the DAC on compliance could be mediated by a sense of obligation and an
Dump-and-Chase
8
ensuing sense of anticipatory guilt that is created when the target presents multiple obstacles to
the influence agent’s request and the agent is persistent and effective in rebutting them. Put
another way, a feeling of obligation in the target could arise as a consequence of the perception
that the influencing agent’s persistence indicates a serious reason for requesting compliance.
Subsequently, this sense of obligation could generate feelings of guilt associated with anticipated
non-compliance with the influencing agent’s request. Compliance then serves as a means of
avoiding the guilt that is anticipated from failure to comply with an important request which one
has no unassailable reason to deny.
Alternatively, the DAC may result in the target feeling sympathy for the influencing
agent. Sympathy denotes feelings of understanding and compassion for another’s plight, and has
been found effective in eliciting helping behavior (Konecni, 1972). The DAC may induce
sympathy to the extent that the target attributes the influencing agent’s persistence to the request
being of particular importance coupled with the absence of others to provide help. Complying
with the request provides a means of fulfilling the influencing agent’s need, and conceivably
producing positive affect in targets as a consequence of their altruistic action.
Finally, the target’s desire to avoid cognitive dissonance provides another reason to
expect the DAC to be effective. Cognitive dissonancy theory (Festinger, 1957) proposes that
dissonance arises when one has two or more inconsistent cognitions. Because it is a
psychologically uncomfortable state, people are driven to reduce dissonance. There are a number
of ways in which dissonance reduction could occur, and one is behavior change. The structure of
the DAC may produce dissonance in the target, and the target may comply with the request as a
way to avoid dissonance. By presenting an obstacle, targets are claiming implicitly that they
would comply with the request were if not for some condition preventing them from so doing.
Dump-and-Chase
9
The influence agent’s response, or chase, to the obstacle addresses why condition this condition
is insufficient so as to preclude compliance. Failing to comply after the obstacle has been
addressed effectively by the influence agent produces an inconsistency in the target’s beliefs and
actions and results in cognitive dissonance. In order to avoid such dissonance the target is
expected to comply with the influence agent’s request after being exposed to responses that rebut
effectively the presented obstacles.
The Relative Effectiveness of the Dump-and-Chase
The primary goal of this project is to elucidate the concept of the DAC and to test its
effectiveness as a compliance-gaining technique relative to other techniques known to be
effective. Comparison techniques with similar characteristics and structure were chosen as
controls. Furthermore, these comparisons were made in two experiments so as to assess the
generalizability of any existing effects.
Experiment 1 compared the DAC with two known compliance-gaining techniques in an
experiment involving a self-serving request for help. One comparison technique was the Doorin-the-Face (DITF) (Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler, & Darby, 1975). Like the DAC,
the DITF technique is sequential, i.e., it involves multiple messages in a planned order. The
structure of the DITF requires that two requests be made: an initial request of a size sufficiently
ample that most would find compliance with it unreasonable, and a second target request that is
more moderate and is framed as a concession to the first (Hale & Laliker, 1999). At least two
meta-analyses show the DITF to be an effective compliance-gaining technique (Dillard, Hunter,
& Burgoon, 1984; Fern, Monroe, & Avila, 1986). The effectiveness of the DITF is often
attributed to the norm of reciprocity. The influencing agent’s subsequent and more modest target
request is expected to be viewed as a concession by the target. Normative pressure to match this
Dump-and-Chase
10
concession by complying is presumed to affect the target (Cialdini et al., 1975). Disagreement
exists over the psychological processes producing this effect (see Hale & Laliker, 1999 for a
review), but its effectiveness is not disputed.
The placebic information (PI) technique provides a second comparison. The PI request
was discussed by Langer as part of her program of research on mindful and mindless action
(Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978). In the Langer et al. (1978) experiment one of three
requests for compliance was made: a direct request, a direct request with a relevant reason for the
request, and a direct request with an irrelevant (placebic) reason for the request. In the PI request
condition, the influence agent asked the target to comply with a direct request to allow them to
move ahead in a line for a photocopier because they needed to make copies. For relatively small
requests the placebic information condition yielded compliance rates (93%) similar to the
relevant information request (94%). Notably, both requests produced more compliance than a
simple direct request (60%). These results suggest that the DAC may be effective because a
reason, any reason, for the request is provided in response to a target’s non-compliance. To
examine this possibility the PI request was chosen as a control technique.
Experiment 2 also made comparisons of the DAC with known compliance-gaining
techniques. In addition to comparing the effectiveness of the DAC, DITF, and PI requests,
Experiment 2 added the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Like the
DAC and DITF, the FITD is a sequential request strategy. Similar to the DITF, the FITD consists
of two requests: an initial small request with which almost every target complies and a
subsequent larger target request. The efficacy of this compliance-gaining technique has been
documented (Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984) and the need for consistency is among possible
mechanisms accounting for its effectiveness (Dolinski, 2000). Particularly, it is posited that a
Dump-and-Chase
11
target’s compliance with the initial request produces expectations that they will also comply with
the subsequent request. Consequently, the target experiences pressure to behave consistently by
complying with the second request. Including the FITD allows for an additional comparison of
the DAC to a frequently studied sequential compliance-gaining technique. Given the finding,
however, that sequential request strategies differ in their effectiveness based on whether they are
pro-social or self-serving to the influencing agent (Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984), the
request in Experiment 2 examined pro-social proselytizing for a student organization.
Experiment 1
Method
Participants. The data in Experiment 1 consist of observations made on a randomly
selected sample of 60 pedestrians who walked in front of the entrance of one of four pre-selected
buildings in the greater Lansing, MI area. The sampling process for each pedestrian began with
the random flip of a coin determining whether a pedestrian entering or leaving the building
would be considered, constrained by the requirement that an equal number of observations of
those entering and those leaving the building be made. Subsequently, a random selection of an
integer (i) from one to six took place. After selecting the number the experimenter (E) counted
each passing pedestrian until the ith pedestrian appeared, and that pedestrian became a participant
(P) in the study. The sampling plan excluded persons carrying large parcels, those who were not
alone, and those talking on a cellular telephone. With the constraint that an equal number of Ps
be observed in each condition, each P was assigned randomly to one of three experimental
conditions. These sampling procedures produced a sample consisting of 27 (45%) males and 33
(55%) females.
Dump-and-Chase
12
Design. Experiment 1 involved contrasting the effectiveness of three different
compliance-gaining strategies: the DAC, the DITF, and the PI. Each P was exposed to one, and
only one, of the three compliance-gaining strategies.
The DAC request consisted of the following initial request made by a confederate (C). “I
need to take care of some business in __________ and I forget the lock for my bike. It should
take about 10 minutes. Will you watch my bike for me until I return?” Rejection of the initial
request by the P stating a rebuff or an obstacle elicited a response from the C that was consistent
with the DAC strategy (see Figure 1). The P and C cycled through a maximum of three
sequences of rejection and response before concluding the interaction. The following list
presents some of the responses delivered by the C. “Why not?”, “I understand, I am in a hurry
too…I will only be 10 minutes.”, “10 minutes is such a small part of the day.”, “I don’t know you
either but I don’t know anyone around here.”, “This is my only means of transportation and
bikes on campus get stolen all the time.”, “Oh, I have tried that before, and they don’t let you do
that”, “You look like an honest person”, and “I think you are a better person than you pretend to
be.”
The initial DITF request was, “I need to take care of some business in __________ and I
forgot the lock for my bike. It should take about 20 minutes. Will you watch my bike for me until I
return?” Rejection of the initial request subsequently elicited the following concession from the
C, “I won’t do everything I was planning on. I will make it in 10 minutes. Will you
watch my bike for me until I return?”
Finally, in the PI condition the C said, “I need to take care of some business in
__________ and I forgot the lock for my bike. It should take about 10 minutes. Will you watch
my bike for me until I return because I cannot watch it?”
Dump-and-Chase
13
Procedure. The 20 observations made in each condition were divided equally across the
four different locations (on the campus of Michigan State University, outside of a shopping mall,
on the sidewalk of a suburban commercial district, and on the sidewalk of an urban business
district). Furthermore, the 20 observations per condition were divided equally across three time
periods (10:00a – 1:00p, 1:00p – 4:00p, and 4:00p – 7:00p).
After selecting a location and time, the E followed the described sampling plan and
selected a P. While one E performed the function of an unobtrusive observer (O), typically in a
car or on a bench while appearing to read a newspaper, a second E performed the function of a
confederate (C), waiting out of sight and ready to approach the P. The O and C communicated
by telephone, allowing them to avoid contact while making observations. In the same manner the
O communicated to the C which compliance-gaining message was to be delivered and which
pedestrians were selected as Ps.
When the C had identified a P, she approached the P on a bicycle. As the C approached
the P, the C acknowledged the P by making eye contact, gesturing with the wave of a hand, and
saying, “Excuse me.” When the C gained the P’s attention, the C immediately delivered the
selected compliance-gaining message. After the request was made the O unobtrusively recorded
the sex of the participant, whether or not the P complied with the C’s request, and how long the
P watched the bicycle. In the DAC condition the C kept mental record of how many chases were
used, and in the DITF condition she noted if the concession was presented. The C reported these
results to the O when preparing for the next P.
If the P complied with the request, the C entered the building, returned in 10 minutes, and
retrieved the bicycle before riding away to prepare for the next P. If the P did not comply with
the C’s request, the C rode away and prepared for the next P. Regardless of the P’s compliance,
Dump-and-Chase
14
before leaving the C inconspicuously handed the P a small index card. This card included a
debriefing statement explaining the study, and it provided contact information that could be used
to address any of the P’s questions or concerns.
Instrumentation. The measurement of a P’s sex was made by observing secondary sex
characteristics. A verbal statement made by the P agreeing to watch the C’s bicycle constituted a
compliant response. A response was considered non-compliant if, upon listening to the C’s
request, the P verbally denied the request. The C mentally recorded the P’s response and the O
watched for the P to remain by the bicycle after the C entered the building. The E and C
compared these two observations after every P, observing no discrepancy for any case. For
compliant responses measurement of how long the P watched the bicycle was performed with a
stopwatch that the O started immediately as the C turned to enter the building and stopped either
at 10 minutes or when the P stopped watching the bicycle prior to the C’s return. Furthermore,
after the DAC request the C counted the number of refusal and chase sequences that were
employed. Finally, in the DITF condition the C noted if the P complied with the initial request or
the concession that followed. The C relayed this information to the O via telephone.
Results
Because two of the strategies are sequential, data on compliance with the initial request
are pertinent and are presented in Table 1. From Table 1 one can observe that, consistent with
what the technique implies, few of the Ps in the DITF condition complied with the initial large
request (5%, one of 20). The initial request employed by the DAC strategy is a direct request, and
40% of the Ps in this condition complied with it (eight of 20). Notably, this compliance rate did
not differ substantially from the initial compliance rate in the PI condition (45%, nine of 20).
Dump-and-Chase
15
Tests of these observations indicate that the three compliance rates differed substantially
from one another (χ2(2, N = 60) = 9.05, p < .05), primarily because the compliance rate in the
DITF condition was substantially lower than the compliance rates in the DAC (χ2(1, N = 40) =
7.03, p < .01, r = .42, OR = 12.67) and PI conditions (χ2(1, N = 40) = 8.53, p < .01, r = .46, OR =
15.55). The DAC and PI conditions did not differ substantially from one another (χ2 (1, N = 40) =
9.05, ns, r = .05, OR = 1.22).
Compliance rates for the target request are presented in Table 2. Overall, the three
compliance rates differed from one another (χ2(2, N = 60) = 6.72, p < .05). A focused
comparison indicated that the DAC technique resulted in a substantially higher compliance rate
than did the DITF technique (χ2(1, N = 40) = 6.67, p = .01, r = .41, OR = 6.00). Additional
focused comparisons showed that the hypothesis of no difference could not be dismissed for the
comparison between the DAC and PI conditions (χ2(1, N = 40) = .90, ns, r = .15, OR = 1.83) and
for the comparison between the PI and DITF conditions (χ2(1, N = 40) = 2.84, p < .10, >.05, r =
.27, OR = 3.27), although the latter difference is not trivial. Comparing the DAC technique with
the pooled data from the two comparison techniques (DITF and PI) resulted in a substantially
higher compliance rate in the DAC condition (χ2(1, N = 60) = 4.15, p < .05, r = .26, OR = 3.12).
Moreover, the compliance rate in the DITF condition was compared with the compliance rate of
the pooled remaining conditions (DAC and PI), and the compliance rate in the PI condition was
compared with the compliance rate of the pooled remaining conditions (DAC and DITF). In
neither case did the compliance rate for the focal technique exceed substantially that of the
pooled data for the remaining techniques.
A comparison of Table 1 and Table 2 proves instructive in assessing the effectiveness of
the sequential character of the DAC and DITF techniques. Specifically, of the 12 Ps in the DAC
Dump-and-Chase
16
condition who failed to comply with the initial direct request, four (33%) complied after the C
persisted in soliciting their compliance. Of these four Ps one complied after one additional
request, two complied after two additional requests, and one complied after three additional
requests. Of the 19 Ps in the DITF condition who failed to comply with the initial large request,
three (16%) complied with the subsequent smaller target request.
There was no evidence that whether the P was entering or leaving the destination,
location, or time of day had an impact on the compliance rate. Male targets, however, were more
compliant than female targets (55.6% vs. 30.3%, χ2(1, N = 60) = 3.90, p < .05, r = .26, OR =
2.88). There was no evidence that any of these factors combined non-additively with the type of
compliance gaining strategy to affect the compliance rate.
Discussion
Experiment 1 demonstrated that the DAC is an effective compliance-gaining technique
relative to other known techniques. Specifically, it produced a higher compliance gaining rate
than the DITF technique, and was as effective as the PI technique. Moreover, it produced a
substantially higher compliance-gaining rate than did the pooled rates of the comparison
techniques.
On the other hand, there were a number of contextual features of this experiment that
were not varied but might have had an impact on experimental outcomes. One such feature
involves the type of request employed. Some data suggest that sequential request strategies differ
in their effectiveness depending on whether they are pro-social or self-serving to the influence
agent (Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984). Because the request in Experiment 1 was self-serving,
it is important to discern if the relative effectiveness of the DAC generalizes to requests other
than helping behavior intended to benefit the needs of the influence agent.
Dump-and-Chase
17
A second factor of potential import is that a single chase response corresponding to each
obstacle was employed. Because Ps sometimes cited the same reason for non-compliance
multiple times, reciting the same chase response became artificial. Consequently, the compliance
rate may have been attenuated in the DAC condition. A stronger DAC induction would more
closely resemble naturally occurring chase behavior. Influence agents such as telemarketers or
salespeople do not cite the same exact reason, or chase, over and over again in response to a
customer’s non-compliance. Instead the same argument is stated with a slight difference or
different arguments may be employed.
A third potentially important feature of context is the immediacy of the request. In this
experiment the request was made for immediate compliance. On the other hand, in many
compliance-gaining situations requests are made for action that is to occur in the future. Such
requests might be perceived as less pressured or urgent than the one made in this experiment and
the compliance-gaining rate might decrease as a result.
A fourth potentially important contextual feature is that a single confederate was
employed. Clearly, employing additional confederates allows the generalizability of the results to
be assessed. Moreover, influencing agents may make compliance gaining requests in the
presence of other people. Expanding the context to include additional persons who are able to
listen to the request and subsequent response would enhance the generalizability of this
experiment to compliance gaining contexts in which multiple persons are present.
A fifth potentially important contextual feature is that only two techniques were used to
compare the effectiveness of the DAC. Clearly there are a host of potential comparison
techniques. Thus, enthusiasm for the initial effectiveness of the DAC must be tempered by the
knowledge that its effectiveness relatively to other important techniques has not been assessed.
Dump-and-Chase
18
Experiment 2
As a result of these limitations a second experiment was designed in which several of
these contextual factors differed from those present in the first experiment. In this experiment the
compliance-gaining request involved donating time to an organization that promotes a pro-social
cause. Thus, the influencing agent could be perceived as being other than self-interested.
Furthermore, multiple confederates were employed, multiple responses to each obstacle were
generated, the compliance behavior request was to be fulfilled at some point in the future, and an
additional control technique (the foot-in-the-door) was added.
Method
Participants. Observations were made on 67 pedestrians who stopped to talk to two
representatives (actually Cs) for a sexual health student organization who were sitting at an
information table at one of three locations on the campus of Michigan State University. To be
selected as a P in this experiment the pedestrian had to be alone, had to appear to be 18 years of
age or older, and had to indicate a willingness to speak to one of the Cs. Those pedestrians
meeting these criteria were greeted by one of the Cs who asked “Hello, do you have a minute?”
Before proceeding, one of the Cs unobtrusively referred to a predetermined random number to
assign the P to a condition. This sampling procedure yielded a sample consisting of 35 (52%)
males and 32 (48%) females.
Design. This experiment included conditions designed to evaluate the relative
effectiveness of the DAC, the DITF, the foot-in-the-door (FITD), and the PI. Each P was
exposed to one, and only one, of the four compliance-gaining techniques.
The DAC consisted of the following initial request, “We really need people to help
operate our recruitment booth next week. Basically, you would be doing what we are doing right
Dump-and-Chase
19
now, handing out pamphlets about the group and seeing if people are interested. Can you help us
operate the recruitment table anytime next week?” Rejection of the initial request by the P’s
statement of a rebuff or an obstacle elicited a response from the C. The C selected the most
relevant of four possible responses, each response intended to address a common obstacle
identified in a pretest. Different chase messages for each obstacle were used so that, if the P
referred to the same reason multiple times, the C would be able to provide a novel chase
message. The P and C cycled through a maximum of three sequences of rejection and response
before concluding the interaction. Table 3 presents a sample of the messages employed.
In the DITF condition the C said, “We’ve been working in conjunction with Grand Valley
and have a performance next Saturday in Grand Rapids which is about 50 minutes away. It’s our
biggest performance ever and the State News is doing a special feature on the group.
Unfortunately, the person that usually sets up our information table at the shows can’t be there
and all our other members are participating in the show. We really need someone to operate the
informational table at the show. Can you do it?” If the P rejected the initial request, the C
followed up with the subsequent concession, “We really need people to help operate our
recruitment booth next week. Basically, you would be doing what we are doing right now,
handing out pamphlets about the group and seeing if people are interested. Can you help us
operate the recruitment table anytime next week?”
In the FITD condition the initial small request consisted of the following statement,
“Would you be willing to wear this small sticker supporting our group?” (Shows sticker to the
participant). If the P complied with this request the C then asked, “We really need people to help
operate our recruitment booth next week. Basically you would be doing what we are doing right
Dump-and-Chase
20
now, handing out pamphlets about the group and seeing if people are interested. Can you help us
operate the recruitment table anytime next week?”
Finally, in the PI request condition the C said, “We really need people to help operate
our recruitment booth next week because it is essential that we have someone here to man the
table. Basically you would be doing what we are doing right now, handing out pamphlets about
the group and seeing if people are interested. Can you help us operate the recruitment table
anytime next week?”
Procedure. At each of the three data collection locations (two busy lecture halls and an
on campus dining hall) the two Cs sat behind an table containing information about the group as
well as pamphlets and handouts about general sexual issues (e.g., condoms, STDs, pregnancy).
There was a sign up sheet on which persons could write their electronic mailing address if they
were interested in having more information about the group sent to them, a pamphlet containing
information both about safe sex and the group, and a handout with group contact information
printed on it. Data were collected both during morning and afternoon hours.
As each pedestrian approached the table the Cs delivered the following script while
claiming to conduct a new member recruitment drive. “(C1) Hi, have you heard of the “In Your
Face Theater Troupe”? The goal of our group is to increase awareness of sexual issues facing
students. We try to do this by spreading information about STDs, safe sex, and other important
things. Our approach is a little different because we try to educate and entertain. Our primary
activity is putting on skits for students in dorms and then sharing information about sexual issues
after the performance. We are looking for people to come join our troupe, we have a lot of fun
and you can . . .” “(C2, interrupting C1) Just so you know, not all our members take part in
performing the skits. There is no way I can get up in front of a bunch of people and act out the
Dump-and-Chase
21
proper way to use a condom… but I really believe in the cause and the group needs people to do
things like publicize performances, help write skits, and set up and run information booths.”
Pedestrians not fitting the criteria of a P were given a flier consisting of basic information
about the group. If the pedestrian fit the criteria, C1 took the role of an observer and C2 took the
role of the influencing agent. C2 delivered one of the four possible randomly assigned requests
and C1 observed whether or not the P complied with the request to help staff the recruitment
table. After responding to the request for compliance Ps were asked if they had any previous
knowledge about the group. Subsequently, there were debriefed. Immediately before leaving, Ps
were asked their age. In order to retain the integrity of the experiment’s cover story the next P
was not selected until the Cs were sure that any pedestrians in the area who may have overheard
the debriefing had left.
Instrumentation. The P’s sex was evaluated by C1 by observing secondary sex
characteristics. Age and previous knowledge about the group were measured by the P’s selfreport. Ps were considered compliant when they indicated verbally that they would help staff the
recruitment table; else they were considered noncompliant. Furthermore, a compliance-gaining
index was formed by summing the number of pieces of available information (signing the
contact information form, taking the group contact information handout, taking the information
pamphlet) that were accessed. In the sequential request conditions (i.e., DAC, FITD, and DITF),
compliance with the initial request was recorded. In the DAC condition, the number of chases
employed was noted.
Results
Because three of the strategies in this experiment are sequential, data on compliance with
the initial request are pertinent and are presented in Table 4. From Table 4 one can observe that
Dump-and-Chase
22
consistent with what the technique requires few of those in the DITF condition complied with the
initial large request (11.8%, two of 17). Furthermore, consistent with what the technique requires
most of those in the FITD condition complied with the initial small request (94.7%, 18 of 19).
The initial request employed by the DAC strategy is a direct request, and 18.8% of those in this
condition complied with it (three of 16). Notably, this compliance rate did not differ substantially
from the initial compliance rate in the PI condition (13.3%, two of 15). Tests of these
observations indicate that the four compliance rates differed substantially from one another (χ2(3,
N = 67) = 37.57, p < .001). This outcome occurred because the compliance rate in the FITD
condition was substantially higher than the compliance rates in the other three conditions, none
of which differed substantially from each other.
Compliance rates for the target request are presented in Table 5. Overall, the differences
among the four compliance rates were not statistically significant (χ2(3, N = 67) = 5.20, ns). A
focused comparison indicated that the DAC technique resulted in a substantially higher
compliance rate than did the PI technique (χ2(1, N = 31) = 4.76, p < .05, r = .39, OR = 6.50).
Additional focused comparisons show that the hypothesis of no difference cannot be dismissed
for all other comparisons, although in some cases the comparisons yield reasonable effect sizes
(i.e., DAC vs. FITD, PI vs. DITF). Comparing the DAC technique with the pooled data from the
three comparison techniques (DITF, FITD, and PI) resulted in a substantially higher compliance
rate in the DAC condition (50% vs. 25.5%, χ2(1, N = 67) = 3.40, p = .065, r = .23, OR = 2.92),
albeit one not statistically significant at the .05 level. Moreover, when the compliance rate in
each of the remaining three cases is compared with the pooled data from the remaining
techniques no substantial differences, or any approaching conventional levels of statistical
significance, emerge.
Dump-and-Chase
23
A comparison of Tables 4 and 5 proves instructive in assessing the effectiveness of the
sequential character of the DAC, FITD, and DITF techniques. Specifically, of the 13 Ps in the
DAC condition who failed to comply with the initial direct request, five (38.5%) complied after
the C persisted in soliciting their compliance. Of these five Ps three complied after one
additional request, one complied after two additional requests, and one complied after three
additional requests. Of the 15 Ps in the DITF condition who failed to comply with the initial
large request, four (26.7%) complied with the subsequent smaller target request. Of the 18 Ps
who complied with the initial small request in the FITD condition, five (27.8%) complied with
the subsequent larger request.
An alternative method of assessing the relative effectiveness of the DAC involves
employing the compliance-gaining index, the sum of the number of pieces of available
information that Ps took or provided. Scores on this index were skewed negatively, and ranged
from 0 to three with a mean of .63, a standard deviation of .98, and a reliability of α = .72
(standardized item α = .73). Summary statistics for this measure are partitioned by condition and
presented in Table 6. Observing Table 6 indicates that the compliance-gaining index scores were
substantially higher in the DAC condition than in the other conditions, and that scores in the
other conditions do not differ substantially from one another. An unweighted means one-way
analysis of variance performed on these data indicates substantial variance in the means (F(3, 63)
= 3.21, p < .05, η2 = .14).1 Furthermore, contrasting the DAC condition with the data pooled from
the other three conditions demonstrated that scores were substantially higher in the DAC
condition relative to the DITF, FITD, and PI (F(1, 65) = 8.62, p < .01, r = .36).2 Moreover,
residual explained variation not attributable to this contrast was trivial (F(2, 64) < 1.00, ns, η2 =
.02). Attacking the same problem in another way, the results of least significant difference test
Dump-and-Chase
24
post-hoc comparisons showed that the DAC was more effective than the PI technique (p < .05),
the FITD technique (p < .01), and the DITF technique (p = .067).
Because the compliance-gaining index was correlated substantially with the dichotomous
measure of agreeing to staff the recruitment table, and because the impact of the treatment was
stronger on the former than the latter, the possibility emerges that taking or providing material
mediates the relationship between the experimental induction and agreeing to staff the
recruitment table. This causal model is presented in Figure 2. From Figure 2 it may be observed
that the path coefficient linking the induction and the compliance-gaining index (index) is
substantial (.36, p < .01, two-tailed), and that the path coefficient linking the compliance-gaining
index and agreeing to staff the recruitment table (compliance) is ample (.46, p < .01, two-tailed).
Given the structure of the model and the parameter estimates, the predicted correlation
between the induction and compliance is the product of the correlation of the induction with the
compliance-gaining index and the correlation of the compliance-gaining index with the
compliance measure, i.e., (.36)(.46) = .17. The obtained correlation between these two variables
was .23, yielding an error in prediction of .06. Such an error is trivial, and well within sampling
error of zero (χ2(1, N = 67) = .14, ns), indicating that the model and data correspond closely.
General Discussion
The results of the second experiment again demonstrate the promise of the DAC
technique. Employing the cruder compliance measure (agreeing to staff the recruitment table), no
technique was more effective than the DAC, the DAC was more effective than the PI technique,
the DAC produced a much higher compliance rate than did the FITD technique (although the
effect could be attributable to sampling error at the convention .05 level), and the DAC generated
a substantially higher compliance rate than that obtained from pooling the data from the other
Dump-and-Chase
25
three conditions. Using the more sensitive compliance-gaining index as a dependent measure, the
DAC was more effective than the three comparison techniques.
Across the two experiments the DAC produced a substantial and homogeneous
compliance rate, 60% in Experiment 1 and 50% in Experiment 2. Two techniques, PI and DITF,
were included in both experiments, and their compliance rates were lower and less consistent
across these two experiments. Notably, these two techniques, as well as the third comparison
technique (FITD), are believed to be very powerful methods of social influence (e.g., see
Cialdini, 2001), and a substantial body of literature is consistent with this claim (e.g., see Dillard
et al., 1984; Langer et al., 1978). The consistency of the DAC, and its effectiveness relative to
known powerful methods of social influence, provides strong evidence of the promise of this
instantiation of persistence.
Also notable is the fact that the consistency of the DAC outcomes occurred despite
substantial contextual variation across the two experiments. For instance, similar compliancegaining rates were obtained when the request was pro-social and when it was self-serving. The
effect was produced when one C was employed and when several Cs were employed. It occurred
when the target request was immediate and when it was to occur in the future. And, it occurred
when the C employed one response per obstacle and when the C employed multiple responses
per obstacle.
Nevertheless, numerous additional contextual factors might be induced. It will be for
subsequent experiments to vary these features, or to introduce new compliance-gaining situations
that hold constant contextual features that challenge the efficacy of the DAC. Also, for future
experiments is left the task of parsing out the accuracy of the proposed explanations of the DAC
Dump-and-Chase
26
effect. The cumulative results from such a corpus will clarify the extent to which persistence is a
powerful tool of social influence.
Dump-and-Chase
27
References
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment.
In H. Geutzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie.
Boster, F. J., Levine, T., and Kazoleas, D. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-gaining behavior.
Communication Quarterly, 41(4), 405-414.
Boster, F. J., Mitchell, M. M., Lapinski, M. K., Cooper, H., Orrego, V. O., and Reinke, R.
(1999). The impact of guilt and type of compliance-gaining message on compliance.
Communication Monographs, 66(2), 168-177.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of Message Repetition and Position on Cognitive
Response, Recall, and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1),
97-109.
Calder, T., Insko, C., & Yandell, B. (1974). The relation of cognitive and memorial processes to
persuasion in a simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 62-93.
Carlsmith, J. M., & Gross, A. E. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 232-239.
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J.E., Lewis, S.K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B.L. (1975).
Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate
motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 181-192.
Dump-and-Chase
28
Dillard, J. P. (1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.),
Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages. Scottsdale:
Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. E. (1984). Sequential request persuasive strategies:
Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication
Research, 10, 461-488.
Dolinski, D. (2000). On inferring one’s beliefs from one’s attempt and consequences for
subsequent compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 260-272.
Fern, E. F., Monroe, K. B., & Avila, R. A. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A
synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144-152.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Foa, E. G., Turner, J. L., & Foa, U. G. (1972). Response generalization in aggression. Human
Relations, 25, 337-350.
Francik, E. P., & Clark, H. H. (1985). How to make requests that overcome obstacles to
compliance. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 560-568.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.
Freedman, J. L., Wallington, S., & Bless, E. (1967). Compliance without pressure: The effect of
guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 117-124.
Goffman, E. (1952). One cooling the mark out: Some aspects of adaptation to failure.
Psychiatry, 15(4), 451-463.
Hale, J. L. & Laliker, M. (1999). Explaining the door-in-the-face: Is it really time to abandon
reciprocal concessions? Communication Studies, 50(3), 203-210.
Dump-and-Chase
29
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 260-268.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R.E. (1981). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on
attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 401-413.
Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital
interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61, 16-27.
Ifert, D. E., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Understanding obstacles preventing compliance:
Conceptualization and classification. Communication Research, 25, 131-153.
Konecni, V.J. (1972). Some effects of guilt on compliance: A field replication. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 30-32.
Kowalski, R. M. (2001). Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kowalski, R. M. (1997). Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 1-9). New York: Plenum Press.
Langer, E., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindless of ostensibly thoughtful action:
The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635-642.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper and Row.
Roloff, M. E., & Jordan, J. M. (1991). The influence of effort, experience and persistence in the
elements of bargaining pleas. Communication Research, 18, 306-332.
Tennen, H., & Herzberger, S. (1987). Depression, self-esteem, and the absence of self-protective
attributional biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 72-80.
Dump-and-Chase
30
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science,
185, 1124-1131.
Weiss, R. F. (1969). Repetition of persuasion. Psychological Reports, 25, 669-670.
White, D. (1975). Contextual determinants of opinion judgments: Field experiments probe of
judgmental relativity boundary conditions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32, 1047-1054.
Williamson, G. M., & Clarke, M. S. (1989). Providing help and desired relationship type as
determinants of changes in moods and self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 722-734.
Wilson, W., & Miller, H. (1968). Repetition, order of presentation, and timing of arguments and
measures as determinants of opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9(2), 184-188.
Youngs, G. A. (1986). Patterns of Threat and Punishment Reciprocity in a Conflict Setting.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 541-546.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9(2), 1-27.
Dump-and-Chase
31
Footnotes
1
Observing Table 6 also indicates that there is a lack of homogeneity of variance (FL(3,
63) = 12.60, p < .001). Performing the contrast analysis employing the t distribution, and making
the necessary corrections for the lack of homogeneity did not change the substantive conclusions.
Moreover, the substantial correlation between the condition means and variances indicates that
the lack of homogeneity may be attributed to a basement effect.
2
If the compliance-gaining index is dichotomized by contrasting those who took at least one of
the indicators with those who took none, the resulting difference is non-trivial, although not
statistically significant (χ2(1, N = 67) = 2.29, ns, r = .19, OR = 2.40. The contrast of this result
with the analysis of variance results is explained by the fact that Ps in the DAC condition took
more material than did those in other conditions.
Dump-and-Chase
Direct
Request
Compliance
NonCompliant
Rebuff
NonCompliant
Obstacle
Ask Why
Not
Respond to
Obstacle
Quit
NonCompliant
Obstacle
Respond to
Obstacle
Figure 1. Dump-and-Chase: A compliance-gaining process.
32
Dump-and-Chase
Induction
.36
Figure 2. A causal model of Experiment 2.
Index
.46
Compliance
33
Dump-and-Chase
Table 1
Initial Compliance Rate: Experiment 1
Condition
Compliance
Complied
Did Not Comply
DAC
DITF
PI
8 (40%)
1 (5%)
9 (45%)
12 (60%)
19 (95%)
11 (55%)
34
Dump-and-Chase
Table 2
Compliance Rate for the Target Request: Experiment 1
Condition
Compliance
DAC
Complied
12 (60%)
4 (20%)
9 (45%)
8 (40%)
16 (80%)
11 (55%)
Did Not Comply
DITF
PI
35
Dump-and-Chase
36
Table 3
Potential Responses to Obstacles
Category of Obstacle
Confederate’s Response
P states they have a busy schedule.
“Today (name of confederate 2) is helping out
between classes. We’re all pretty busy but we
don’t have absolute times people can help with
the booth. We’re flexible. Can you help us?”
“I understand, but it really won’t take a whole
lot of time out of your schedule. Can you help
us?”
“I can relate, but I’m sure if you think about it
you have some free time to help us out. Can you
help us?”
P states they don’t know very much
about the group.
“Oh, you wouldn’t have to do it alone. There
would be some else who is not a new member to
help operate the booth. Can you help us?”
“This is only (name of confederate 2)’s second
time helping out with the booth. You don’t have
to be a long time group member to help out.
Can you help us?”
“All you really have to do is ask people if they
are interested and give them a pamphlet. Can
you help us?”
P states they do not know their
schedule.
“That’s okay, you don’t have to give us an exact
time and day you can do it right now. We just
need to know if you can do it sometime next
week and then you can let us know exactly when
you can do it later. Can you help us?”
“You don’t have to give us a specific time and
date now but I’m sure you have a sense of what
days and times you have free. Can you help
us?”
Dump-and-Chase
37
“Well you can just give us a general sense of
when you might be available and we can work
out the specifics later. Can you help us?”
P states they are not interested.
“What… do you not care about AIDS? This is
an issue that affects everyone. Can you help
us?”
“You can’t deny how important it is for people
to be more aware about safe sex. Can you help
us?”
“You might not be interested, but this is an issue
that affects you no matter what. Even if you are
abstinent or always have safe sex, someone you
care about may not. Can you help us?”
Dump-and-Chase
Table 4
Initial Compliance Rate: Experiment 2
Condition
Compliance
DAC
DITF
Complied
3 (18.8%)
2 (11.8%)
18 (94.7%)
2 (13.3%)
13 (81.3%)
15 (88.2%)
1 (5.3%)
13 (86.7%)
Did Not Comply
FITD
PI
38
Dump-and-Chase
Table 5
Compliance Rate for the Target Request: Experiment 2
Condition
Compliance
DAC
DITF
FITD
PI
Complied
8 (50%)
6 (35.3%)
5 (26.3%)
2 (13.3%)
Did Not Comply
8 (50%)
11 (64.7%)
14 (73.7%)
13 (86.7%)
39
Dump-and-Chase
Table 6
Compliance Index Scores as a Function of Experimental Condition
Condition
Statistic
DAC
DITF
FITD
PI
Mean
1.25
0.40
0.26
0.65
Standard Deviation
1.34
0.74
0.56
0.93
N
16
15
19
17
40