Sequential Request Strategies How to open doors… and slam them

Pre-Giving l Pregiving creates a sense of indebtedness Regan’s (1971) study involving “Joe,” a confederate. l Based on the “norm of reciprocity” l Beware of unfair exchanges example: a male buys a female three drinks in a bar. Does she “owe” him anything in return?

Pregiving: illustrations l Befriending your neighbors l How to get a kid to stop kicking your seat on an airline l Pregiving at work l Pregiving in sales

The “foot in the door” strategy (FITD) l The basic principle: if a person agrees to a small, initial request, she/he is more likely to agree to a subsequent larger request. l 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 those exposed to the “foot in the door.”

Theoretical explanations for the “FITD” l Bem’s self-perception theory: People make self-attributions based on their own behavior. l Gorassini & Olson: activating relevant attitudes

Keys to making the FTID strategy work l Size of the initial request: must be small enough to ensure compliance, but not so small as to appear trivial or inconsequential. l First and second requests need not be made by the same requester. l External incentives for complying should not be present. l The time interval between the first and second requests can make a difference (2-3 days is best) l Positive social labeling can help. l The FITD strategy works best with pro-social causes l Receivers with a high need for consistency are most likely to comply

The “door in the face” strategy (DITF) l The basic principle: 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. l 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: asked to give blood once, the next day. results: compliance for the DITF group was 49%, versus 31% for the control group.

Theoretical explanations for the “DITF” l perceptual contrast phenomenon: the second request seems much more reasonable by comparison l reciprocal concessions: the target perceives he/she is engaged in a bargaining situation l self-presentation explanation: target doesn’t want to be perceived negatively by the source l guilt-based explanation: target feels guilty for not being helpful l Note: at present, it isn’t clear which of these explanations best accounts for the research findings

Keys to making the DITF strategy work l Size of the initial request: must be large enough to be rejected, but not ludicrous or incredulous. l Size of the follow-up request: must be unambiguously smaller than the initial request. l First and second requests must be made by the same requester. l No time delay between the first and second request. l The DITF strategy works best with pro-social causes. l DITF works best with “exchange-oriented” people

Other sequential strategies l Foot in the mouth: “How are you today?” Acknowledging that one is doing fine, feeling well, or in a good mood psychologically predisposes a person to be more agreeable l The low ball technique (bait & switch): hidden “strings” Example: fine print in a low airfare ad (“restrictions may apply”). Example: a car ad that claims “zero interest” (but only for buyers with pristine credit histories)

still more sequential strategies l The “that’s not all” strategy: sweetening the deal increases the perceived value of an offer Often combined with the scarcity principle, “The first 20 callers will also receive…” l Combined feet and face: various combinations also work, including Door-Door, Foot-Foot, and Door-Foot strategies. l Bait & Switch: Example: “loss leaders” in newspaper ads for automobiles. Example: “Sorry, we’re out of your size, but…”

Low ball versus bait & switch l The low ball tactic changes the original deal or adds conditions to the existing deal. l The low ball operates after the target becomes psychologically committed l The bait & switch involves a completely different deal, an alternative product or course of action l The bait lures the target in before she/he is psychologically committed

Bait & Switch in car sales l A newspaper ad features a car for $0 down and $299 a month. l The car is actually a “loss leader,” a stripped down version of the model l The advertised price assumes you have an A+ credit rating l The term may be $60 months (5 years) l The advertised price doesn’t include tax, license. acquisition fees, and other hidden costs l The car has invariably been sold

Bait & switch in air fares l You see a great fair on Expedia, Orbitz, or Travelocity to a travel destination l You enter the days and times you want to fly l After “searching” the website says “sorry this fare is sold out l Only higher priced fares are available l The fare doesn’t include a fuels surcharge, take off and landing fees, luggage fees, and taxes