Effectiveness of Multiple Request Strategies: A Synthesis of Research Results

Fern, Edward F.; Monroe, Kent B.; Avila, Ramon A.

doi:10.2307/3151661

Cited by 92 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Critics of the reciprocal concessions explanation have argued that it is not supported by the evidence (Abrams & Bell, 1994;Dillard, 1991;Dillard et al, 1984;O'Keefe, 1999;O'Keefe & Figge, 1997, 1999. Although meta-analyses indicate that the DITF effect is heterogeneous (O'Keefe & Hale, 1998), there is no evidence that initial request size serves as a moderator (Fern et al, 1986;O'Keefe & Hale, 1998)*which is in contrast to reciprocity predictions. Notably, not all scholars agree with these meta-analytic findings (Hale & Laliker, 1999).…”

contrasting

confidence: 45%

The Moderators and Mediators of Door-in-the-Face Requests: Is it a Negotiation or a Helping Experience?

Turner¹,

Tamborini²,

Limón

et al. 2007

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Door-in-the-Face (DITF) compliance-gaining tactic occurs when a large request, expected to be rejected, is followed by a more reasonable request that is granted. The mechanisms underlying the DITF strategy remain unclear. Researchers have posed different explanations for the effectiveness of DITF, including the reciprocal concessions and the social responsibility models. These theoretical rationales for DITF were tested in a 3 (request type: initial request only, DITF sequence, small request only) )2 (initial request size: moderate, large))2 (solicitor familiarity: friend, stranger) betweenparticipants experiment. Findings from the compliance data are mostly consistent with the reciprocal concessions model; but, findings from the cognitive and affective data were mixed. It appears that DITF messages are perceived as a helping situation for friends, but not for strangers. Strangers view request messages of all sizes to be a negotiation, but friends see these requests as a negotiation only when the initial request is large.Keywords: Compliance; Sequential Request Strategies; Door-in-the-face; Reciprocal Concessions; Guilt Persuasion scholars have long believed that an effective compliance-gaining tactic is to begin by making a large request, with the expectation that it will be rejected, and follow its refusal with a smaller request (Cialdini et al., 1975). This approach, the Door-in-the-Face (DITF) sequential request strategy, has received considerable

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 45%

The Moderators and Mediators of Door-in-the-Face Requests: Is it a Negotiation or a Helping Experience?

Turner¹,

Tamborini²,

Limón

et al. 2007

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The FITD technique is viewed by many social psychologists as a highly versatile strategy that has been used to gain compliance in many situations, including increasing donations to charities (Guéguen & Jacob, 2001), completing mail-in surveys (Cialdini, Trost, & Newsom, 1995), increasing volunteerism (Guadagno, Asher, Demaine, & Cialdini, 2001), and agreeing to become an organ donor (Carducci, Deuser, Bauer, Large, & Ramaekers 1989). Nearly five decades of research and over 100 studies revealed that the FITD technique is reliable in gaining compliance (Beaman, Cole, Preston, Klentz, & Steblay, 1983;Burger 1999;Dillard, Hunter, & MR. BIG TECHNIQUE 11 Burgoon, 1984;Fern, Monroe, & Avila, 1986;Pascual & Guéguen, 2005). Within a Mr. Big operation, the target becomes committed to the organization by agreeing to complete very small jobs initially, such as transporting goods from one location to another.…”

Section: Six Reasons Why the Mr Big Technique Is Inherently Flawedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting the Mr. Big technique back on trial: a re-examination of probative value and abuse of process through a scientific lens

Luther

Snook

2016

Journal of Forensic Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling resulted in stricter rules being placed on how police organizations can obtain confessions through a controversial undercover operation, known as the Mr. Big technique. The SCC placed the onus on prosecutors to demonstrate that the probative value of any Mr. Big derived confession outweighs its prejudicial effect, and that the police must refrain from an abuse of process (i.e., avoid overcoming the will of the accused to obtain a confession). We argue that a consideration by the SCC of the social influence tactics used to elicit confessions -because such tactics sully the circumstances preceding confessions and verge on abuse of process -should lead to all Mr. Big operations being prohibited. Keywords A Re-Examination of Probative Value and Abuse of Process through a Scientific LensPolice investigators are sometimes faced with instances where they are, for whatever reason, unable to solve serious crimes (e.g., lack of evidence, no confession). In response to such circumstances, some police organizations have employed elaborate undercover operations that circumvent the rules of custodial interrogations (i.e., where the suspect is formally detained in police custody). One type of undercover operation used to tackle such difficult cases in Canada is known as the major crime homicide technique -known colloquially as the Mr. Big technique (RCMP, 2011). In a recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling (R. v. Hart, 2014), stricter rules were placed on how police organizations can obtain confessions using this technique.In the current article, we outline what is known about the Mr. Big technique and discuss the recent SCC ruling. We then review six powerful social influence tactics identified by Cialdini (2007) -reciprocity, consistency, liking, social proof, authority, and scarcity -for achieving compliance, and argue that each tactic is a sine qua non of Mr. Big operations. We also argue that the use of these tactics negates the probative value of all Mr. Big confessions and verges on an abuse of process. We conclude that it is impossible to envision the elicitation of an admissible confession from any Mr. Big operation.

show abstract

“…Hoe kunnen we verklaren dat mensen met relatief weinig cognitieve inspanning handelen wanneer zij worden blootgesteld aan een beïnvloedingstechniek en automatisch gebruik maken van heuristieken bij het nemen van een beslissing? Een mogelijke verklaring voor deze gedachteloosheid kan gevonden worden in een kenmerk dat vrijwel alle succesvolle beïnvloedingstechnieken met elkaar gemeen hebben: meervoudige beslissingsmomenten of opeenvolgende verzoeken (Fern et al, 1986). Men wordt onderworpen aan een initieel verzoek, waarbij men een …”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…You answer these seemingly harmless questions and then this person asks you to subscribe to the charity program he is working for. Metaanalyses suggest that the chance that one agrees to this request is now significantly larger than if the fundraiser had asked for a contribution right away (Burger, 1999;Fern, Monroe, & Avila, 1986).…”

Section: Social Influence: Compliance With Persuasive Requestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Why do people proceed with a minimum of cognitive effort or thought and behave automatically, falling back on heuristics for decision making, when confronted with an influence technique? It was proposed that the origins of this mindlessness could be found in a characteristic that almost all successful influence techniques have in common: multiple decision moments or sequential requests (Fern et al, 1986). The target of influence has to yield to one or several initial request(s), answer probing questions, or making choices before the target request is presented.…”

Section: Summary Of the Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-regulation and social influence : a limited-resource account of resisting and yielding to persuasion

Janssen¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of Multiple Request Strategies: A Synthesis of Research Results

Cited by 92 publications

References 0 publications

The Moderators and Mediators of Door-in-the-Face Requests: Is it a Negotiation or a Helping Experience?

The Moderators and Mediators of Door-in-the-Face Requests: Is it a Negotiation or a Helping Experience?

Putting the Mr. Big technique back on trial: a re-examination of probative value and abuse of process through a scientific lens

Self-regulation and social influence : a limited-resource account of resisting and yielding to persuasion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About