The Relative Effectiveness of a Direct Request Message and a Pregiving Message on Friends and Strangers

Boster, Franklin J.; Rodríguez, José I.; Cruz, Michael G.; Marshall, Linda J.

doi:10.1177/009365095022004005

Cited by 42 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that immediate reciprocity resulted in a stronger sense of betrayal among committed mates and friends than among coalition partners (who were rated as not close). These findings are consistent with research showing that norms of reciprocity (e.g., pregiving) enhance compliance for strangers but not for friends (Boster, Rodriguez, Cruz, & Marshall, 1995).…”

supporting

confidence: 90%

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

supporting

confidence: 90%

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

“…A favor has its strongest effect on compliance when it occurs between strangers (Boster et al, 1995); the benefactor incurs high cost to provide it (Goei & Boster, 2005); the beneficiary perceives high reward from receiving it ; the beneficiary attributes the favor to benevolent intentions, not to some ulterior motive (Reeder, Vonk, Ronk, Ham, & Lawrence, 2004); and the benefactor follows the favor with a prosocial (not an antisocial) request for compliance (Boster et al, 2001).…”

Section: Favormentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Favor and Apology on Compliance

Goei

Roberto

Meyer

et al. 2007

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to test the effects of favor and apology on compliance and to explain any potential effect via indebtedness, gratitude, and liking. Two experiments were devised to accomplish these ends. In the first experiment favor and apology were varied in the absence of a transgression to see if apologizing for not providing a favor can be used proactively to increase compliance. In the second experiment favor and apology were varied in a more common scenario, following a transgression. Results show that favor has a positive effect on compliance mediated by gratitude when using a general prosocial request and by liking when using a more altruistic request. Results also suggest that apology has a positive effect on liking and that apology has an indirect effect on compliance under certain conditions.

show abstract

“…There is no doubt that there is a tendency for people to help and acquiesce more readily to requests from people they know and like, as opposed to strangers (Boster, Rodriguez, Cruz, & Marshall, 1995). Research is clear that we ought not to underestimate the power of the ties that bind us with others in gaining compliance.…”

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

The Relative Effectiveness of a Direct Request Message and a Pregiving Message on Friends and Strangers

Cited by 42 publications

References 11 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?

The Effects of Favor and Apology on Compliance

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About