Sequential Persuasion Strategies: Testing Explanations for and the Generality of the Legitimization of Paltry Favors Effect

Abstract

The legitimization of paltry favors effect (LPF) is a sequential persuasion tactic whereby small contributions toward some overall compliance-gaining goal are linguistically minimized. An experiment was conducted to test whether self-presentation concerns or barrier removal better explains the LPF. Participants (N ¼ 145) were approached and asked to volunteer for international student programs. Message strategy (LPF=no LPF) and beneficiary party (first-person=third-person) were varied. The data revealed neither main effects for message strategy or beneficiary party, nor any interaction between these variables. Results question the generality of the LPF, as well as the appropriateness of utilizing the LPF in volunteer solicitation efforts. Limitations and implications are discussed.Researchers of sequential persuasion techniques are well acquainted with the legitimization of paltry favors effect (LPF). First documented by Cialdini and Schroeder (1976), the LPF generally occurs as a message that validates very small contributions toward some overall compliance-gaining goal. Although specific instantiations vary,

“Even a Single Package of Pastas Will Help . . .”

“…In their seminal study, Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) found that the statement "Even a penny will help" added to fundraising requests considerably increased the probability of compliance without diminishing the amount of the donation offered by the benefactor. Other studies found no significant effect with the technique (Dibble et al, 2011;Takada & Levine, 2007). Other studies found no significant effect with the technique (Dibble et al, 2011;Takada & Levine, 2007).…”

A Meta-Analytic Review of the Legitimization of Paltry Favors Compliance Strategy

“…Although a considerable body of research supports the effectiveness of the LPF technique, the results have not always been consistent when the tests of the LPF technique were conducted across different contexts. Some studies have found little or no effect of the LPF technique on the compliance rate (Dolinski et al, 2005, Study 2;Fraser & Hite, 1989;Takada & Levine, 2007;Weyant & Smith, 1987, Study 1), and other studies have even shown a negative effect (Dibble et al, 2011;DeJong & Oopik, 1992;Reeves & Saucer, 1993, Study 1, mail-in, no commitment). Andrews, Carpenter, Shaw, and Boster (2008a) conducted a meta-analytic review of the LPF effect to identify potential moderators that affect the discrepant results and to describe the patterns of the LPF effect to be accounted for by any successful explanation of the technique's workings.…”

“…Also, the effectiveness of the LPF technique has been investigated in combination with other compliance-gaining tactics, such as normative information (Reeves, Macolini, & Martin, 1987), pre-giving (Weyant, 1984), dialogue induction (Dolinski, Grzyb, Olejnik, Prusakowski, & Urban, 2005), and initial request of a small or large favor (Reingen, 1978); for details of these tactics, see Methods section. The causes for which requesters asked targets for donations also varied and included health promotion (e.g., Weyant & Smith, 1987), helping needy neighbors or refugees (e.g., Guéguen, Martin, & Meineri, 2013), protection of animals (e.g., Reeves & Saucer, 1993), and supporting social or educational events (e.g., Dibble et al., 2011).…”

“…Although a considerable body of research supports the effectiveness of the LPF technique, the results have not always been consistent when the tests of the LPF technique were conducted across different contexts. Some studies have found little or no effect of the LPF technique on the compliance rate (Dolinski et al., 2005, Study 2; Fraser & Hite, 1989; Takada & Levine, 2007; Weyant & Smith, 1987, Study 1), and other studies have even shown a negative effect (Dibble et al., 2011; DeJong & Oopik, 1992; Reeves & Saucer, 1993, Study 1, mail-in, no commitment).…”

“…Studies have also been conducted investigating potential mediating mechanisms to explain the effectiveness of the LPF technique. Scholars have mainly examined two mediating mechanisms, including concerns about self-presentation (Dibble et al., 2011; Reeves et al., 1987; Reeves & Saucer, 1993) and barrier removal (Dibble et al., 2011). The self-presentation explanation holds that targets will comply with a small request in order to avoid presenting a negative appearance to the requester.…”