Sequential Persuasion

Content By:
Kristen Bissell
Kathryn Driscoll
Sandra Cogill
Barrett Belanger
Presentation Creation and Design By:
Kristen Bissell

University of Southern Maine Department of Communication & Media

Studies
CMS 272 - Persuasion

Introduction
Persuasion is many things; its not just making
a request or giving a speech. Persuasion,
quite frequently is a process that requires a
number of steps be enacted in the right order.
Sequential persuasion encompasses many
tactics meant to get people to act in certain
ways.
Research has shown that persuasiveness can
often be increased by either saying or doing
something before making any request(s).

Pregiving
The Ill Scratch Your Back If Youll Scratch Mine
Approach
Pregiving is a tactic that entails trying to get
someone to comply by acting nice or doing favors
for him or her in advance.
One very common example of this is free
samples, like food you get to taste in the
grocery store.

Why is Pregiving
Persuasive?
There are several common reasons given
for why the pregiving tactic works:
Liking suggests that you are perceived as
good or kind because you give to others.
Gratitude: states that receiving a favor
leads to positive emotional states, like
feelings of gratitude, that motivate
benevolent behavior. People comply
because the favor creates a feeling of
thankfulness and benevolence.

 Impression Management and Internalized

Social Norm: Based on the idea of The
Norm of Reciprocity (indebtedness). This
ideas says, it is desirable to repay what
another person has provided us (206).
Impression management says that repaying favors
is desirable because it keeps one from looking
ungrateful.
Internalized Social Norm says that repaying favors
is wanted because it makes people feel good
about themselves and doing the right thing.

Foot In the Door

The Give-Me-An-Inch-And-Ill-Take-A-Mile
tactic
Foot in the Door (FITD) involves making a
small request, later followed by a larger
one. The smaller, first request, functions
as a setup for the larger request. Studies
show that when people comply with the
smaller request they are more likely to
comply with the larger request.

Why is a Foot in the Door so

Persuasive?
Self-Perception theory is the most commonly used
explanation for why Foot in the Door is so persuasive.
Self Perception Theory states People come to know
their attitudes, emotions, and other internal states by
inferring them from their own behavior (208).
An explanation of FITD with self-perception theory
would say, when one complies with a small request,
you see yourself as an altruistic person that is likely
to help. Once this view is formed, your motivation to
behave consistently with that view gained. Because of
this when a larger request is made, persuasion is
more likely.

When does foot in door

work?
There are seven main concepts
that allow Foot in the Door to

work
1.Size of initial request the persuader has to find the right
balance when asking an initial request. It must be something
that doesnt seem outrageous to ask for, but at the same
time doesnt seem insignificant.
2. Prosocialness of the request The persuader is more likely
to get what they are asking for if it is a good cause for
someone else rather than for self-serving reasons.
3.External incentives to comply If someone gets an external
incentive for complying with the smaller first request, they
are less likely to comply with the second request if it does
nothing for them. This means that the pregiving strategy and
the FITD strategy do not work well together.

 3.External incentives to comply If someone

gets an external incentive for complying with the
smaller first request, they are less likely to
comply with the second request if it does
nothing for them. This means that the pregiving
strategy and the FITD strategy do not work well
together.

4. Who makes the requests It doesnt

have to be the same person to ask both
requests. People are still likely to say yes to the
second request by a different person, as long as
it is done quickly after the first question.

5. Labeling When you see yourself as

being labeled as a giving and helpful person, you
start acting that way because its your selfperception. An example of labeling would be an
I donated to Haiti sticker you received from
your donation.

 6. Preference for consistency People who

want their behavior to stay consistent, will
stay consistent in saying yes or helping
people, especially if the persuaders requests
are similar.

7. People who have a high self-concept

of clarity will be more likely to comply with
the first and second requests because they
see themselves as helpful and want to
continue feeling and seeing themselves that
way.

The Foot-In-The-Mouth
Effect

The Foot-In-The-Mouth effect is when you

set yourself up to have a certain attitude.
If a persuader asks you how are you
feeling and you say great, you then can
make yourself feel committed to the
persuader and act great. This effect is
commonly used in fundraising. An example
would be a political committee calling to
find out how people are voting. They first
ask how the caller is, and if they say they
are wonderful the committee member
might have a more upbeat tone when
asking the questions and the caller feels

The Door-In-The-Face Tactic

The Door-In-The-Face tactic is when at first the persuader

makes a request so large that the person will obviously turn
it down, but they then try again with a smaller request that
seems much more reasonable and the person says yes.
What the person doesnt know is this is what the persuader
wanted all along. The example from the book states that
college kids were asked an outrageous request to
chaperone juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo,
which of course they said no to. When a similar group of
kids was asked to spend two hours a week as a counselor to
juvenile delinquents for a minimum of two years or could
they chaperone a trip to the zoo, the students were three
times more likely to say yes to the zoo because it seemed
much more reasonable compared to the first request.

When does a Door in the

Face Work?

Size of the initial request: For it to work, the first

request must be large enough to guarantee rejection by
the persuadee but not so large as to appear incredulous.
Prosocialness of the request: A meta-analysis by
Dillard and colleagues (1984) found that the DITF tactic is
not effective when used for self-serving reasons but can
increase compliance as much as 17% when used for
altruistic purposes.
Elapsed time between first and second request: In
order to increase compliance, the delay between the two
requests must be brief. If there is too much of a delay
between the requests, compliance may actually decrease.

 Can a second person make the second

request: Researchers feel the DITF strategy
does not work if the first and second requests
are made by different people.
Who answers the door: The DITF tactic may
be more effective on exchange-oriented
people than it is on non-exchange-oriented
people because exchange-oriented people
tend to keep track of what they owe others
and what others owe them (Murstein, Wadling,
& Bond)

The That's-Not-All Tactic

Example of Tactic (from the book):
After presenting the books
and before asking for the
sale, the salesman showed
his customers several other
items they could receive for
free if they agreed to buy the
encyclopedias being sold.
This tactic can include many
different things from adding on
additional items to make a sale
look better to lowering the price of
an item.
With this tactic, the persuader will
not wait for the initial request to
be rejected before sweetening the
deal.

The Lowball Tactic

How it works:
A deal is made that looks too good to refuse. (A
car you want is a few hundred cheaper at this
dealership than at any other dealership). Once
you decided you want to get the car a couple
different things happen. The dealership may have
to add on additional accessories that cost money
or the deal may end up getting rejected by the
dealership even though it had already been
offered.
Another example is a credit card company offering you
a car with really good rates but of course the rates will
go up in a couple months.

Why Lowballing Works

One Reason- Commitment (one someone
commits to the original offer they almost
become psychologically committed,
according to Cialdini and colleagues 1978.
Second Reason- proposed by Burger and
Petty (1981). It is believed that once
someone commits to an original deal, they
feel obligated to stick with it even when it
is changed.

Bait and Switch Tactic

The bait and switch tactic could be the cruelest
of them all. A shiny, bright hope is dangled in
front of you, luring you in at a price that cant be
beat. You fantasize about sipping wine in Italy or
playing Bejeweled on a brand new iPad that it
is sold out or not available. But something else
is available at a higher price and because those
fantasies seemed so fabulous and you
committed the next thing you know you are
walking out the door spending more and getting
less than expected (218).

Why is Bait and Switch such

an effective tactic?
Its effective because the lure commits us,
once we commit to the idea of a vacation or a
new toy like an iPad we are less likely to let it
go. Even when there is nothing to gain
research by Joule (1989) in which students
who were asked to participate in a well paid,
interesting experiment showed up to find the
experiment canceled were more willing to take
part in a different unpaid, boring experiment
than other students who had not received the
lure of money and interesting topic.

 The Bait and Switch tactic shares some features of the

lowball tactic in that each requires two decisions one
before and based on the lure and one after when the
true cost is shown. The difference is that with the
lowball tactic the same behavior is required, just at a
higher cost. With the bait and switch tactic the
behavior is different, for example an iPad is advertised
on the side of Facebook at the unbelievable price of $99
but when you click the link they are out but can sell you
an iPod touch for only $120.

The Disrupt Then Reframe

Technique a.k.a. The Im So
Confused
Tactic
The Disrupt than Reframe Technique (known as DTR) is a sequential
compliance tactic that relies on the assumption that certain requests
create conflict. When making a large purchase or being asked to
make a charitable donation a person may feel conflicted about
spending money. DTR overcomes this conflict by creating confusion,
which reduces resistance.
Confusion techniques include changing the wording of the request;
an example would be the difference between asking someone to
purchase 2 candy bars for $3.00 or asking someone to purchase 2
candy bars for 300 pennies. The key is to spin the reframed request
in a positive manner, only 300 pennies for TWO candy bars The
change in request causes confusion, which may stop the person from
asking more questions or arguing the point of the 300-penny
bargain.
A 2004 study by Fennis, Das and Pruyn showed DTR is effective
specifically because it decreases counter arguing.(p.219)

Legitimizing Paltry
Contributions Even a Penny
Will Help
In 1976 Cialdini and Schroeder identified a way donation

seekers can diffuse excuses like I cant afford to donate or I

have no time to help by simply asking for the very minimum
a few pennies or a few minutes.
It works because the request seems less intimidating and it
might also invoke guilt if a charity is only asking for a few
pennies and I refuse I must be heartless.
Research shows this tactic works well when used face to face
and combined with other techniques such as social proof.
There are downsides though, this approach could be
counterproductive when the persuade cannot see the
persuaders viewpoint. Some research also suggests that this
technique may reduce donation amounts but may be
counterbalanced with an increase in people who donate overall.

Fear-Then-Relief And Happiness

Then Disappointment
Procedure

This technique is based on the good cop/bad cop

premise. First the fear emotion (from the bad
cop) causes a reaction that results in the person
launching into an action program (p 220). Once
the fear is relieved (the good cop moment) there
is a short period of time where the person becomes
open to influence attempts. It is a sort of break
between programs (p.220). This tactic is an
emotional roller coaster so the break between
programs may metaphorically be that moment just
after the first 360 loop when you are disoriented,
exhilarated and vulnerable to what comes next.

 There is also some research that suggests that it is not

only the fear then relief scenario that leaves people
feeling more compliant. A study by Nawrat & Dolinski
in 2007; involving subjects at first thinking they had
found money but then realizing the money was not real
also resulted in those subjects being more compliant to
requests later than those who did not experience the
happiness then disappoint roller coaster.
It needs to be pointed out that this technique of all
those discussed in this section skirts ethical
boundaries. Instilling fear or raising false hopes is not
a way to build a positive reputation.