Sequential persuasion

Persuasion Sequential Persuasion

Sequential Persuasion

 A class of persuasive tactics that depend on requests and persuasive statements being carried out in a specific sequence

Sequential Persuasion

 Tactics aimed at getting people to comply

A list of 64 compliance-gaining strategies. Kellermann, K. & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages: Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 1, 3-60.

Overview

 Tactics aimed at getting people to comply

• Pregiving

• Foot-in-the-Door

• Door-in-the-Face

• That’s-Not-All

• Lowball

• Bait-and-Switch

• Disrupt-Then-Reframe

• Legitimizing paltry contributions

Pregiving

 Getting someone to comply by doing favors for him/her in advance

• Favors and gifts create a sense of indebtedness and returning favors is

culturally universal

Why Does Pregiving Work?

 The persuader

• Liking: the pregiver is perceived as a good, kind person

• Physical attractiveness: the pregiver is perceived to be more attractive

 The persuadee

• Impression management: people do not want to be perceived as ungrateful

freeloaders

• Internalized social norm: returning a favor makes people feel good about

themselves

Why Does Pregiving Work?

 The process

• Gratitude: pregiving leads to positive emotional states that motivates

favor return

• Perceived ulterior motives: pregiving is less effective when it is seen as a

tool of manipulation

The Foot-in-the-Door Tactic (FITD)

 A person who agrees to a small, initial request is more likely to comply with a subsequent larger request

Why Does FITD Work?

 Self-perception theory: people make self-attributions based on their own behavior

• You see yourself as an altruistic person when you agree to comply with a

small request, which then leads to consistency of compliance with the

second request

• Activating relevant attitudes is important (“you are so thoughtful.” “You are

so generous.”)

When Does FITD Work?

 Requests

• Prosocial requests: the strategy works best with prosocial causes

• Social labeling: Positive labels help activate relevant attitudes

• No external incentives: there should be no external inducements such as

payment or rewards

• Size of the 1st request: must be small enough, but not so small as to appear

trivial

• Time delay: a time delay between the 1st and 2nd requests may help activate

relevant attitudes

When Does FITD Work?

 The persuader

• The 1st and 2nd requests need not be made by the same requester

 The persuadee

• People with a high need for consistency/high self-concept clarity are more

susceptible

The Door-in-the-Face Tactic (DITF)

 A person is presented with an initial, large request which she/he is inclined to reject, the person thereby becomes more likely to comply with a second, more reasonable request

Why Does DITF Work?

 The persuadee

• Self-presentation: the target doesn’t want to be perceived negatively by

others

• Guilt: the target feels guilty

 The Request

• Perceptual contrast phenomenon: the 2nd request seems much more

reasonable by comparison

• Reciprocal concessions: the target perceives he/she is engaged in a

bargaining situation

When Does DITF Work?

 The Request

• Prosocial requests: the tactic works best with prosocial causes

• Size of the initial request: the 1st request must be large enough to be

rejected, but not ludicrous

• Size of the follow-up request: the 2nd request must be unambiguously

smaller than the 1st

• Time delay: the 2nd request should follow right after the 1st

When Does DITF Work?

 The persuader

• The 1st and 2nd requests must be made by the same requester

 The persuadee

• DITF works best with “exchange-oriented” people

The That’s-Not-All Tactic

 Free extras sweeten the deal and add perceived value to an offer

• “The first 20 callers will also receive…”

• “The original price is xxx but you will received a discount of xxx”

• Contrast: the revised deal may seem much better than it actually is

• Reciprocity: people may feel obligated to return the favor

That’s-Not-All vs. Door-in-the-Face

 That’s-Not-All

• The product or service is the same, but at a reduced price

• The that’s-not-all operates before the target makes a decision

 Door-in-the-Face

• The product or service in the second offer is different and at a reduced price

• The door-in-the-face operates after the first request was declined

The Lowball Tactic

 Increasing price of adding conditions to an offer that is “too good to be true” in the last minute

• There may be outright deception: “there was a mistake in the ad, the wine is

$19.99 per bottle, not $1.99”

• There may “hidden strings” attached: the advertised price for a cruise

doesn’t include tips, shore excursions, alternative dining, onboard activities,

internet, etc.

• Once people are psychologically committed, it is hard to back out

• People who initially agreed feel obligated to keep their promise

The Bait-and-Switch Tactic

 Advertising an offer that is “too good to be true” but offering something else later

• When the consumer tries to buy the low-priced item, the item is no longer

available, and the consumer is persuaded to purchase a more expensive item

instead

• “Sorry, we’re out of your size, but…”

Lowball vs. Bait-and-Switch

 Lowball

• The product or service is the same, but at a higher price

• The low ball operates after the target becomes psychologically committed

 Bait-and-switch

• The product or service is different and at a higher price

• The bait lures the target in before she/he is psychologically committed

The Disrupt-then-Reframe Tactic (DTR)

 A quirky statement disrupts cognitive processing

• “My soccer team’s candy is $5. That’s only 500 pennies.”

• The disruption inhibits counterarguing

Legitimizing Paltry Contributions

 Pre-empts potential objections

• “Even a penny will help!”, “No donation is too small.”

• The tactic induces guilt if the target declines

• Produces a large quantity of smaller donations

• More effective when combined with other tactics like social proofing (i.e.,

descriptive norm influence) or when used face-to-face

• Less effective for requests to donate time, rather than money

Applied Sciences

Architecture and Design

Biology

Business & Finance

Chemistry

Computer Science

Geography

Geology

Education

Engineering

English

Environmental science

Spanish

Government

History

Human Resource Management

Information Systems

Law

Literature

Mathematics

Nursing

Physics

Political Science

Psychology

Reading

Science

Social Science

Home

Blog

Archive

Contact

google+twitterfacebook

Copyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com