Mindless processing of requests? Don't ask twice

Abstract

This study examines the mindlessness hypothesis and its associated compliance-gaining paradigm from the perspective of politeness theory. The main prediction of politeness theory, which is not taken into account in the mindlessness literature, is that the perceived magnitude of an imposition is a function not only of the size of favour asked but also of the framing of the request itself. A confederate asked students studying in the library for either one or 10 sheets of paper using appropriate variations of Langer et al.'s three request types: no reason, placebic reason and real reason. Students then completed a questionnaire to determine: (a) how large the imposition on them had been; (b) their verbatim memories for the requests; and (c) self-reported compliance with the requests. In order to examine the effect of reflective thought on subjects' judgements and recall, this questionnaire was completed either immediately following compliance/non-compliance or three minutes later. The analyses established that the perceived imposition is influenced jointly by the actual imposition, the type of request and the time of judgement. Further, contrary to some previous research, the recall memory data provide support for a strong version of the mindlessness hypothesis, as well as new evidence for the reconstructive character of conversation memory. It is concluded that politeness theory describes a powerful heuristic that people use when processing requests.

Legitimacy Crisis? Behavioral Approach and Inhibition When Power Differences are Left Unexplained

“…However, we propose that sometimes the sheer presence of an explanation is enough for people to accept power differences. Past research has shown that people tend to accept even weak or placebic explanations for negative outcomes (e.g., Haines & Jost, 2000;Kappen & Branscombe, 2001;Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978;Slugoski, 1995). In one of Langer and colleagues' classic studies, a person about to use a copying machine was asked to let someone else use it first.…”

Utilitarian relevance and face management in the interpretation of ambiguous question/request statements

“…The participants clearly judged that such replies conveyed an indirect, face-threatening meaning for the speaker. Furthermore, when this interpretation was canceled by the context (e.g., the participants were explicitly informed that the presentation had been excellent), the participants found the replies much more ambiguous and difficult to understand (see also Holtgraves, 1999;Holtgraves & Yang, 1990, 1992Slugoski, 1995).…”

The effects of reasons given for ineligibility on perceived gender discrimination and feelings of injustice

“…Conversely, a reason that includes seemingly explanatory information for a negative outcome may attenuate anger, feelings of injustice and illegitimacy. Research suggests that when people are provided with an explanation, they experience less imposition than when they are not provided with an explanation (Slugoski, 1995). Similarly, people who perceived that they were included in a decision process reported feeling that they had received fair treatment to a greater degree than those without 'voice' (Lind, Kanfer, & Early, 1990).…”