J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and Social Psychology

1 9 8 1 , Vol . 40, No. 3, 492-500

Copyri ght 1 9 8 1 by t he Ame r i ca n Psychological Associ at i on, Inc.
0022-351 4/ 8 1 /4003-0492S00.75
The Low-Ball Compliance Technique: Task or Person
Commitment?
Jerry M. Burger
Wake Forest University
Richard E. Petty
University of MissouriColumbia
Three experi ment s were conducted to exami ne the medi at i ng process involved
in the low-ball procedure for increasing compliance. In Experiment 1, subjects
who agreed to but were not al l owed to perform an i ni t i al request complied wi t h
a more costly version of the same request to a greater extent t han did controls
onl y whe n the second request came from the same person as did the first request
and not whe n it came from a di ffer ent person. In Experiment 2, subjects who
agreed to but were not allowed to car r y out an initial low-cost request complied
wi t h a larger request from the same person to the same ext ent , whether the first
request was related or unrel at ed to the second. In Experiment 3, subjects were
allowed or not allowed to perform an i ni t i al small request aft er agreeing to do
so. Lat er, these subjects were approached by either the same or a di fferent person
wi t h a larger second request . All groups showed increased compliance over a
control cell. However, subjects not allowed to perform the i ni t i al request who
were approached by the same person for the second request showed a higher rate
of compli ance t ha n subject s in the other experi ment al conditions. The results
fr om t he t hree exper i ment s suggest t hat an unf ul f i l l e d obligation t o t he requester,
rat her t ha n a commi t me nt to the i ni t i al target behavior, is responsible for the
effectiveness of the l ow-bal l t echni que.
Recent social psychological i nvest i gat i ons
have examined the effectiveness of tech-
ni ques designed to increase compliance to
requests in the absence of any obvi ous
sources of pressure (cf. DeJong, 1979). The
earliest compliance-without-pressure tech-
ni que, t he foot -i n-t he-door, was introduced
by Freedman and Fraser (1966). Subjects
who complied with an initial small request
were found to be more likely to agree to a
si mi lar but larger request from a di ffe r e nt
person t han were subjects contacted only
wi t h the second request. Freedman and
Fraser suggested t hat as a result of perform-
Portions of this report were presented at the meeting
of the Mi dwest ern Psychological Associ at i on, Chicago,
May 1979.
We woul d l i ke t o t ha n k t he many unde r gr a dua t e s who
assisted i n t he dat a collect i on for these e xpe r i me nt s ,
especially Steve Cole, Dan Kal i ne , Paul Ma r kl i n, Mi -
chael Ol i ver i , and Ji m York. We are also i ndebt ed t o
t he Col umbi a chapt e r of t he Mu l t i pl e Sclerosis Society
for t he i r cooperation and provi si on of ma t e r i a l s for Ex-
periment 3.
Requests for r e pr i nt s s houl d be sent to Ri cha r d E.
Petty, De pa r t me nt of Psychology, McAlest er Ha l l ,
Uni ve r s i t y of Mi ssouri , Col umbi a, Mi ssouri 6521 1 .
ing the first request, the subject comes to see
hi m- or herself as the type of person who
favors such requests, resulting in an in-
creased willingness to perform the second
request.
The most recent procedure for increasing
compliance wi t hout pressure, the low-ball
t e chni que , was demonst rat ed by Ci al di ni ,
Cacioppo, Bassett, and Miller (1978). Sub-
jects who agreed to but had not yet per-
formed an i ni t i a l s mal l request (e.g., dis-
pl ayi ng a poster for a chari t y cause) were
found t o comply wi t h t ha t same request
whe n it was s ubs equent l y made more costly
(e.g., t hey had to pick up the poster at a
di s t ant locat i on) at a higher rate t ha n did
subjects approached onl y wi t h t he costly ver-
sion of the request. Addi t i onal l y , Ci al di ni et
al. demonst rat ed t ha t t he low-ball procedure
was significantly more effective in increasing
compli ance t ha n t he foot -i n-t he-door tech-
ni que . Al t hough mere agreement t o per for m
an i n i t i a l s mal l request may be s uffi ci e nt t o
engender the same self-perception process
t ha t i s operat i ve wi t h t he foot -i n-t he-door
t e chni que (Bern, 1972), Ci al di ni et al. ar-
49 2
LOW-BALL EFFECT 493
gued t hat the low-ball procedure requires an
additional commitment to a part i cular be-
havior, which is absent in the foot-in-the-
door procedure. This additional "cognitive
commitment to the performance of the tar-
get behavior" (1978, p. 468) was advanced
to account for the increased effectiveness of
the low-ball procedure beyond that found
with the foot-in-the-door technique.
Although Cialdini et al. successfully dem-
onstrated the effectiveness of the low-ball
procedure, a close examination of their ex-
periments suggests an alternative interpre-
tation of their findings. In all three of the
Cialdini et al. (1 9 78 ) studies, the same ex-
perimenter presented subjects with the first
and second request. The possibility exists,
therefore, that the subjects experienced an
unfulfi lled obligation to the specific re-
quester in addition to or instead of a com-
mi t ment to the target behavior. Individuals
agreeing to the initial request may have felt
as if they owed something to the requester,
because they were unable to carry out the
first request. Therefore, when asked by the
same experimenter to engage in the behavior
at an increased cost, subjects may have com-
plied with the second request to ful fi l l their
obligation to the requester.
Cialdini et al. (1 9 78 ) provide the example
of an automobile salesperson who secures an
agreement to purchase a car and then in-
creases the cost of the vehicle. The consumer
is said to be committed to the action of pur-
chasing the car and is more likely to pur-
chase the car at an increased cost than if no
initial commitment to the car had been
made. However, it is reasonable to assume
t hat an obligation to the salesperson has also
developed in this situation and may be suf-
ficient to account for the increased willing-
ness to buy the car at the higher price. If the
Cialdini et al. reasoning is correctthat as
a result of the initial decision, persons be-
come committed to the carthen even if a
di fferent salesperson were to ret urn with the
deal, increased compliance would result.
However, if the low-ball procedure is effec-
tive because the i ni t i al agreement produces
an unfulfi lled obligation to the salesperson,
then subjects would more easily reject the
car at an increased price if the more costly
deal were presented by a new salesperson.
Experiment 1
Our first experiment was designed to test
the obligation-to-the-requester interpreta-
tion of the low-ball effect. Subjects who
agreed to but did not perform an initial re-
quest were asked to perform the same be-
havior at a higher cost either by the same
requester or by a different individual. Sub-
jects in a control condition were presented
only with the second request. It was reasoned
that if a commitment to the target behavior
is solely responsible for the low-ball effect,
as suggested by Cialdini et al., then whether
the second (more expensive) request is pre-
sented by the same or a different person
should not affect the rate of compliance.
Both conditions should show more compli-
ance than the control condition. On the other
hand, if an unfulfi lled obligation to the initial
requester is solely responsible for the low-
ball effect, as suggested here, then persons
receiving the first and second requests from
the same individual should comply with the
second request at a higher rate than persons
who receive the requests from two different
people. In fact, the latter condition should
not differ from the control cell.
Method
Subjects
Sixty male and female undergraduate psychology stu-
dents served i ndi vi dual l y as subjects. All subjects had
just finished participating in an experiment on "adver-
tising," for whi ch they received class credit. Five un-
dergraduate males served as experimenters for the
study. Which experimenter made which request was
determined randomly for each subject.
Procedure
Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three con-
ditions. Upon completion of the "advertising" experi-
ment, the experimenter gave the subject his or her credit
point and then told the subject that he was also working
on a class project and needed some students to serve as
volunteers. The experimenter presented the subject with
several sheets of long division problems and explained
t hat he was conducting research on numeric skills. Each
sheet contained 12 problems that require^gie subject
to divide a multidigit number into another multidigit
number. The first problem was completed to illustrate
t hat several steps were required in answering each prob-
lem. The experimenter explained t hat the subject's task
was to work on the problems unt i l getting them all cor-
rect. He furt her explained t hat the task took about an
hour to complete for the average college student.
494 J ERRY M. BURGER AND RICHARD E. PETTY
All subjects except those in the control condi t i on were
t hen told t hat t hey could receive anot he r hour of ex-
per i ment al credit by compl et i ng t he di vi si on problems.
The experi ment er asked the subject if he or she woul d
l i ke t o st ay and part i ci pat e. If t he subject asked i f he
or she could complete onl y part of the problems, come
back to part i ci pat e, or finish par t i ci pat i ng in the exper-
i me nt at a later time, t he e xpe r i me nt e r e xpl ai ne d t hat
he needed to have all of the problems completed at one
sitting and the data collected t hat day.
If subjects declined to part i ci pat e in the experi ment
on numeri c skills, they were di smi ssed. If t hey agreed
to part i ci pat e (27 out of 40 agreed, see Table 1), the
experimenter announced t ha t he woul d have to go to his
office to pick up the answer sheets. The experimenter
asked the subject to wai t in the room for a few mi nut e s ,
and t hen he left wi t h the problem sheets.
Same-requester condition. If subjects were assigned
to the same-requester condi t i on, the same exper i ment er
returned approximately 2 minutes later wi t h the exper-
i ment al materials. The experi ment er also held a memo,
whi ch he said he had jus t received from t he chai r man
of the psychology depart ment 's Human Subjects Com-
mittee. He explained t hat due to a shortage of subjects,
he would not be allowed to give any experimental credit
for part i ci pat i ng i n class projects l i ke t he nume r i c ski l l s
st udy. The experi ment er t hen br i efl y described t he t ask
again and asked the subject if he or she would s t i l l be
wi l l i ng t o part i ci pat e i n t he s t udy for no credi t . If t he
subject declined, he or she was debriefed and excused.
If the subject agreed, he or she was hande d the problem
sheet and allowed to work on one problem before bei ng
stopped and debri efed.
Different-requester condition. If subjects were as-
signed to the different-requester condition, a second ex-
perimenter returned to the room appr oxi mat el y 2 mi n-
utes aft e r the first exper i ment er had l e ft . The second
experi ment er introduced hi ms el f as one of the persons
worki ng on t he nume r i c ski lls project wi t h t he fi rst ex-
perimenter. In addition to the experimental materials,
he held the memo from the Hu ma n Subjects Committee.
He explai ned t ha t the first experi ment er had to leave
s uddenl y and would not be back. The experi ment er said
t ha t he di dn't know i f t he fi rst e xpe r i me nt e r had ex-
plained the project and briefly repeated the task re-
qui rement s. He t hen announce d t ha t a l t hough t hey had
i ni t i a l l y planned to give subject s e xpe r i me nt al credit for
par t i ci pat i ng i n t he nume r i c ski l l s s t udy, he had jus t
received a memo from t he cha i r ma n of t he Hu ma n Sub-
jects Committee t hat did not allow credit for partici-
pat i ng i n such projects. Subjects were t he n asked i f t hey
would be wi l l i ng to par t i ci pat e in the s t udy.
Control condition. Subjects in the cont rol condi t i on
were not told about the possi bi l i t y of e a r n i n g experi -
mental credit. Instead, when the experimenter presented
t he i ni t i al request he expl ai ned t ha t a l t hough t he y had
want ed t o give 1 hour of credi t , t he Hu ma n Subjects
Committee would not allow i t . These subject s were t hu s
presented wi t h only the no-credit (more expens i ve) re-
quest.
Results
The number of subjects complying wi t h
the first and second requests in each condi-
tion are presented in Table 1. As can be seen
in the table, subjects in the two experimental
conditions did not di ffer si gni fi cant l y in t hei r
rate of compliance wi t h the i ni t i al request,
X
2
( 1) = . 1 1 , ns. The investigation was con-
cerned, however, wi t h the rate of compliance
wi t h the second, more costly request. Two
orthogonal contrasts were conducted. First,
the compliance rate of subjects in the di f-
ferent-requester condition (i ncl udi ng those
decli ni ng the i ni t i al request) was compared
wi t h the compliance rate in the control con-
dition. It was found t hat the conditions did
not di ffer si gni fi cant ly in t hei r rat e of com-
pliance, x
2
(0
=
.17, ns. Next, the rate of
compliance in the same-requester condition
was compared wi t h t hat in the other two
conditions. It was found t hat subjects re-
ceiving both requests from the same individ-
ual complied wi t h the second request at a
greater rate t han did subjects in the other
two conditions, x
2
0) = 8.93, p < .005.
When the subjects who declined the i ni t i al
request are dropped from the analyses, sim-
ilar results are obtained. Different-requester
subjects did not comply si gni fi cant ly di ffer-
ent l y (21 %) t ha n control subjects, x
2
U)
=
.01, ns., and same-requester subjects com-
plied at a rate significantly higher (85%)
t han t hat for subjects in the other two con-
ditions, x
2
(0 = 10.78. p < .005.
Discussion
The results of Experiment 1 successfully
replicated the increase in compliance over
a control condition found with the low-ball
t echni que, as operationalized by Cialdini et
al. (1 9 78 ). Subjects complied wi t h a costly
request more often when first presented wi t h
Table 1
Percentages of Subjects Complying With Initial
and Second Requests
Ini t i a l
request
Second
request
Gr oup
Same requester
Di fferent requester
Control
65
70

13
14

55
15
20
11
3
4
Note, n = 20 for each cell.
LOW-BALL EFFECT 495
the same request at a lower cost than did
subjects presented with only the more costly
request. More i mport ant l y, however, this
effect was found only when the same re-
quester presented the first and second re-
quests. When a di fferent experimenter pre-
sented the second request, subjects were no
more likely to comply wi t h t hi s more costly
request t han were subjects not receiving the
initial request.
The findings t hus fail to support Cialdini
et al.'s commitment-to-the-behavior expla-
nation for the low-ball effect. Subjects should
have been equally committed to performi ng
the target behavior in both the same- and
different-requester conditions. The finding
t hat subjects increased t hei r rate of compli-
ance beyond t hat found in the control con-
dition only when the same person presented
both requests suggests that an obligation to
the person instead of or in addition to a com-
mi t ment to the behavior is responsible for
the low-ball effect.
Experiment 2
One question t hat remains unanswered by
the first experiment is whether a commit-
ment to the target behavior is at all necessary
for producing the low-ball effect. It may be
that when a person agrees to but is unable
to perform an initial task, the unful fi l l e d
obligation to the requester makes the person
more susceptible to a second, more costly
request from the same person, even if the
second task is unrelated to the first one. On
the other hand, if a commitment to perform
the target behavior is necessary for the low-
ball effect, as suggested by Cialdini et al.,
then it would be expected that increased
compliance would be found only when the
second request is a more costly version of the
initial request and not when it is unrelated.
This question was examined in Experi-
ment 2.
Method
Subjects
Procedure
Subjects were contacted by telephone in the evening.
If a subject could not be contacted aft er three attempts,
he or she was dropped from the sample and replaced
by another randoml y selected subject.
Related-request condition. Subjects in the related-
request condition heard the following initial request:
Hi . My name i s . . and I'm cal l i ng for the Corn-
Sixty uni versi t y students were r andoml y selected from
the uni ver s i t y phone directory and assigned to one of
three experimental conditions.
mi t t ee for Student Awareness. We are a group of
concerned st udent s interested in demonst rat i ng our
opposition to f ur t he r increases in st udent t ui t i on and
fee costs. What I would li ke to know from you now
is, if we send a student by wi t h a petition stating our
position, woul d you be wi l l i ng to sign it?
If subjects asked for f u r t he r i nf or ma t i on about t he pe-
t i t i on, t hey were t old, "The pet i t i on me r e l y says t ha t
you, along wi t h other signers, are i n opposition t o f u r t he r
t ui t i on and fee increases." If subjects agreed t o t he i ni -
t i al request (only two refused and were replaced), the
experi ment er replied:
Good. Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry. I was looking at
the wrong list. It looks like we have already filled
several petitions. What I meant to call you about was
not the petition, but a related task.
Subjects were then presented wi t h the second, more
costly request. They were told t hat in addition to the
petitions,
We would also like to get a large number of students
to write letters or postcards duri ng this next week to
the Student Opinion Administrator here on campus
to furt her demonstrate our opposition. If I give you
the address right now, would you be wi lli ng to wri t e
a short postcard or letter just stating in a line or two
t hat you, too, are opposed to any fur t her increases in
tuition and fees?
If subjects inquired about what to wri t e in their letters,
they were told, "Just write something like: I am wri t i ng
to say t hat I am opposed to furt her increases in student
tuition and fees at [the University of] Missouri." The
experimenter waited unt i l receiving a verbal reply to the
request before ending the conversation. Thus, in this
experimental condition, the cost (in terms of time, en-
ergy, and the expense of a stamp) of protesting an in-
crease in tuition was increased. Subjects agreeing to the
request were given a mailing address, which would allow
the experimenter to record how many subjects in each
condition showed behavioral as well as verbal compli-
ance wi t h the more costly request.
Unrelated-request condition. When the experi-
menter i ni t i al l y contacted subjects in the unrelated-re-
quest condition, he also identified himself as a member
of the Committee for Student Awareness. Subjects in
this condition were presented wi t h the following i ni t i al
request:
We're calling students to get your opinion about the
new campus shuttle bus system. Could you spare a
few mi nut es now to answer about four or five short
questions for us?
496 J ERRY M. BURGER AND RICHARD E. PETTY
When subjects agreed to t hi s request (none refused),
t he experi ment er replied:
Good. Oh, wai t a mi nut e . I'm sorry. I was looking at
the wrong list. What I meant to call you about was
not the survey, I've al ready reached my quota on t hat ,
but I wanted to ask you about helping us show our
opposition to the suggested f ur t he r increases in st u-
dent t ui t i on and fees here at [t he Uni ve r s i t y of] Mis-
souri. We have al ready filled several pet i t i ons dem-
onst rat i ng our opposition to these increases.
This was followed by the same l e t t e r -wr i t i ng request
t ha t was presented t o t he subjects i n t he same-request
condition.
Control condition. Subjects in the no-i ni t i al -request
control condition were also contacted by the experi-
menter, who i dent i fi ed hi msel f as a member of the Com-
mittee for Student Awareness. These subjects were told:
We're calling uni ve r s i t y st udent s about hel pi ng us
show our opposition to the suggested f u r t he r increases
in st udent t ui t i on and fees here at [the Uni versi t y of]
Missouri. We have al r eady filled several pet i t i ons
de mons t r at i ng our opposition to these increases.
This was followed by the l e t t e r -wr i t i ng request as pre-
sented to subjects in the other two conditions.
Results
Subjects' responses were assigned the fol-
lowing values: 2 = verbal and behavioral
compliance (agreed on phone and letter re-
ceived), 1 = verbal compliance only, and
0 = no compliance. To test the specific hy-
potheses of interest, two orthogonal planned
comparisons were performed.
First, as anticipated, a comparison be-
tween the related-request condition (M =
.70) and the unrelated-request condition
(M = .65) failed to find a significant di ffer-
ence between the compliance scores for these
two groups (F < 1). However, as expected,
when the combined compliance scores of
subjects in the related-request condition and
t he unrelated-request condition ( M=. 68 )
were compared with the scores of subjects
in the no-initial-request control condition
(M - .35), a significant effect emerged, F(l ,
57) = 4.70, p < .05.'
Discussion
The results of Experiment 2 once again
replicated the low-ball effect as operation-
alized by Cialdini et al. (1 9 78 ). Subjects
complied with a costly request at a higher
rate when first presented with a similar low-
cost request t hat they were not allowed to
perform. More importantly though, the in-
crease in compliance rate did not vary as a
funct i on of the specific behavior that the in-
dividual promised to perform in the initial
request. When an unrelated behavior was
requested by the same experimenter, sub-
jects complied at a rate significantly higher
t han t hat of subjects presented with only one
request but not significantly di fferent from
t hat of subjects presented with a similar first
and second request.
The results t hus suggest t hat a commit-
ment to a specific task or issue (e.g., stopping
tuition increases) may not be necessary for
the increase in compliance found with the
low-ball procedure. Instead, it appears that
an unfulfi lled obligation to the requester
may be responsible for the low-ball effect.
This unful fi l l ed obligation to the requester
appears to increase compliance to a second
request even when a very di fferent issue is
involved.
Experiment 3
Taken together, the results of Experi-
ments 1 and 2 suggest that Cialdini et al.'s
(1 9 78 ) interpretation of the low-ball effect
may not be correct. Instead of a commitment
to the target activity, these two experiments
suggest t hat an unfulfilled obligation to the
requester may be responsible for the increase
in compliance found with this technique. An
i mport ant aspect of the Cialdini et al. studies
and Experiments 1 and 2 is t hat subjects
agreeing to the initial request were not al-
lowed to perform t hat behavior at the orig-
i nal cost. If the unfulfilled-obligation-to-the-
requester interpretation is correct, then it
would be expected t hat if individuals are
provided with an opportunity to ful fi l l the
i ni t i al obligation, they will not feel a need
to help the requester fur t he r and will there-
fore fail to show the increased rate of com-
pliance found in the low-ball procedure.
1
If the verbal and behavioral compliance frequencies
are analyzed separately, t hen the same pat t ern emerges
on each measure, though only the verbal measure pro-
duces a si gni fi cant low-ball effect. Specifically, the rates
of verbal compliance for the related (1 3/20) and un-
related (1 2/20) conditions di d not di f f e r s i gni fi cant l y,
but the combined rate was greater than the compliance
rate in the control cell (7/20), x
2
0) = 4.05, p < .05.
Only two letters in opposition to the t ui t i on increase
were received (behavioral compliance measure), one
each from subjects in the two experi ment al cells. These
letters were forwarded to the Uni ve r s i t y chancellor.
LOW-BALL EFFECT 497
Experiment 3 was designed to examine
this possibility. Subjects were either allowed
or not allowed to perform the i ni t i al low-cost
request. The same or a different experi-
menter later presented the subject wi t h a
related but more costly request. It was an-
ticipated that (a) when the subject was al-
lowed to perform the i ni t i al request, com-
pliance to the second request would not be
affected by whether the same person made
the request (since no unful fi l l e d obligation
existed), and (b) when the subject was not
allowed to perform the initial request, com-
pliance to the second request would be
greater when the same person made the re-
quests than when the requests came from
di fferent people (since it is hypothesized t hat
the unful fi l l ed obligation is to a part i cul ar
person).
Method
Subjects
Seventy-five college-age males and females served as
subjects. Subjects were residents of on-campus dormi -
tories or apart ment complexes near the uni ver s i t y
campus.
Procedure
Subjects were randomly preassigned to one of the five
conditions. That is, a random order of doors to be ap-
proached and a random order of condi t i ons for subjects'
answering t hei r doors were predet ermi ned.
Performance manipulation. In the first part of the
experiment, the i ndi vi dual ans wer i ng the door was pre-
sented wi t h the followi ng request by the experimenter:
Hello. My name is . . and I'm worki ng for the
Nat i onal Mul t i pl e Sclerosis Society. We are i nt er -
ested in publi ci zi ng our current fund-rai si ng dri ve and
I was wondering if you would be interested in helping
us by di spl ayi ng a poster like t hi s one on your door
for the next two weeks.
All subjects agreed to this request. In the perform con-
ditions, the experimenter t hanke d the person for helping
and t hen taped an Wi in. X 11 in. (21 . 5 cm X 27.9 cm)
poster onto the front door. In the no-perform conditions,
the experimenter reached i nt o an envelope as if to pul l
out a poster but stopped and announced:
I'm sorry. It looks like I'm all out of posters. I guess
I gave my last one away to the last person I talked
to. I'm really sorry. But t hanks a ny wa y for offeri ng
to help.
Thus in the perform conditions, subjects were able to
perform the i ni t i al small request, whereas in the no-
perform conditions, subjects agreed to but were unabl e
to perform the i ni t i al small request. In both conditions,
the experimenter recorded the room number , first name,
and experimental condition for each subject.
Requester manipulation. Approximately 10-15
minutes after the first request, either the same or a dif-
ferent experimenter ret urned to the door. In the same-
requester condition, the experimenter explained "I for-
got to mention last t i me I was here t hat . . . ." In the
different-requester condition, the experimenter intro-
duced hi mself wi t h, "Hello. My name is and I'm
wor ki ng for t he Nat i onal Mul t i pl e Sclerosis Society."
In both conditions, the experimenter then said:
The Nat i onal Mu l t i pl e Sclerosis Society is looking for
people to serve as volunt eers di s t r i but i ng envelopes
for MS. There will be an MS representative at [a
room in the lobby of the dorm or apar t me nt ] between
[a 2-hour t i me i nt e r val ] t oni ght ha n di n g out collection
envelopes in whi ch cont r i but i ons can be made. Would
you be interested in hel pi ng MS by going to
between and t oni ght and picking up
a collection envelope and ei t her collecting from ot hers
or taking the envelope for your own contribution?
Experi ment ers waited for an affi r mat i ve or negative
reply before aski ng subjects for their first names, t hank-
ing them, and leaving. The experimenter then recorded
the room number, the subject's first name, and whet her
the subject had agreed to the second request.
Control condition. In the control condition, subjects
were approached only once. The experimenter presented
the subject wi t h the di fferent -experi ment er request to
pick up a vol unt eer packet.
2
Results
The names and room numbers of subjects
who picked up packets were recorded. As in
Experiment 2, subjects were assigned a score
of 2 (verbal and behavioral compliance), 1
(verbal compliance only), or 0 (no compli-
ance) for their responses to the second re-
quest. The mean scores for the five condi-
tions are presented in Table 2. Four
orthogonal contrasts in the context of a one-
way analysis of variance were performed to
test the specific hypotheses of interest. First,
the four experimental conditions were com-
pared with the control condition. This con-
trast revealed t hat experimental subjects
complied more t han controls, F(l , 70) =
13.34, p < .05. Next, no effect for the same-
di fferent requester variable wi t hi n the per-
form conditions was found, F(l, 70) =
.37, ns.
2
Four male experimenters who were bli nd to the ex-
perimental hypotheses were rotated through the roles
required in the various conditions. A fifth male acted
as the MS representative in the dorm or apart ment
lobby.
498 J ERRY M. BURGER AND RICHARD E. PETTY
Table 2
Effects of Same or Different Requester and
Performance of Initial Request on Compliance
Rates
Condition VCF BCF CCI
No perform-same requester
No perform-different requester
Perform-same requester
Perform-different requester
Control
13
8
11
10
5
4
1
2
1
0
1.13
.60
.87
.73
.33
Note. VCF = verbal compliance frequency; BCF = be-
havioral compliance frequency; CCI = combined com-
pli ance i nde x, n = 15 for each cell.
If the commitment-to-the-behavior i nt er-
pretation of the low-ball effect is correct,
subjects in the no-perform-di fferent -re-
quester condition should have complied wi t h
the second request more often t han did sub-
jects in the two perform conditions, because
of t hei r unful fi l l ed obligation to the task,
helping MS. However, this effect failed to
emerge, F(l , 70) = 1.01, ns. Fi nally, if an
unful fi l l e d obligation to the person is re-
sponsible for the increased compli ance wi t h
the low-ball procedure, then subjects in the
no-perform-same-requester condition should
have complied si gni fi cant ly more often t han
subjects in the other t hree conditions (be-
cause this is the only condition in whi ch an
unful fi l l ed obligation to a person exists). A
significant contrast supported this viewpoint,
F(l , 70) = 4.51, p < .05.
3
Discussion
Experiment 3 once again demonstrated
the effectiveness of the low-ball procedure
for i ncreasi ng the rate of compliance wi t h
a costly request by first securing agreement
to perform but not allowing performance of
a similar behavior at a lower cost. The results
also replicated the foot-in-the-door effect,
agai n demonst rat i ng the effectiveness of t hi s
compliance technique. Subjects approached
by a di fferent i ndi vi dual wi t h a large request,
after agreeing to perform or performing a
smaller request, agreed to the second request
at a higher rate t han subjects approached
only wi t h the large request. The results also
replicated the Cialdini et al. finding t hat the
low-ball procedure (with the same requester)
was more effective in inducing compliance
than the foot-in-the-door procedure.
Of most importance in Experiment 3 was
the finding that subjects not allowed to per-
form the initial request and approached by
the same person for the second request had
a rate of compliance significantly higher
t han t hat of subjects in the other three ex-
peri ment al conditions. This finding suggests
t hat the higher rate of compliance for the
no-perform-same-requester subjects is due
to an unful fi l l ed obligation to the requester
t hat developed from the inability to perform
the i ni t i al request. Subjects approached by
a di fferent experimenter were not able to
ful fi l l their obligation to the i ni t i al requester
by complying wi t h the second request. Sub-
jects allowed to perform the initial request
were able to ful fi l l their obligation to the
requester and t hus were not as likely to com-
ply wi t h the second request as were the no-
perform-same-requester subjects. The re-
sults thus provide additional support for the
unfulfilled-obligation-to-the-requester inter-
pretation of the low-ball effect.
4
General Discussion
Summary
The three experiments presented here sug-
gest t ha t the low-ball procedure, as opera-
3
These same f o u r contrasts were computed separat ely
on the frequencies of verbal and behavi oral compli ance
(see frequencies in Table 2). Analyses on the ver bal
compli ance measure produced one s i gni f i ca nt effect:
There was great er ver bal compli ance i n t he experi -
me nt al cells (42/60) t han i n t he cont rol cell (5/ 1 5),
X
2
( l ) = 6.89, p < .05. Analyses on the behavioral com-
pl i ance measure yi elded one ma r gi n a l l y s i gni f i ca nt re-
s ul t : Behavi oral compliance was great er i n t he no-per-
form-same-requester condi t i on (4/ 1 5) t ha n i n t he ot her
t hree e xpe r i me nt al cells combi ned (4/45), x
2
0) = 3.07,
p< .10.
4
In addi t i on t o t he u n f u l f i l l e d obli gat i on t o t he re-
quest er, subject s i n t he same-request er condi t i ons may
have also been mot i vat ed by i mpr es s i on-management
concerns. Tedeschi, Schl enker, and Bonoma (1 9 71 ) have
argued t ha t people are mot i vat ed to present t hemselves
in a consi st ent manne r to others. However, a mot i ve to
appear consistent cannot by i t sel f account for t he i n-
crease in compliance found for the same-requester sub-
jects not allowed to perform the behavior over t ha t of
the perform-same-requester subjects. Because the ex-
pe r i me nt e r saw t hem perform t he i n i t i a l behavi or, per-
form-same-requester subjects should have been e qual l y
if not more mot i vat ed to present themselves in a con-
sistent manner t han the no-perform subjects.
LOW-BALL EFFECT 499
tionalized by Cialdini et al. (1 9 78 ), is a suc-
cessful means of increasing compliance with
a request. The effectiveness of the technique
across three different types of requests in-
dicates the robust nat ur e of the effect. Con-
sistent with the Cialdini et al. findings, the
low-ball procedure also appears to be more
effective in increasing compliance t han the
foot-in-the-door technique.
However, the effectiveness of the low-ball
procedure does not appear to be due to the
explanat i on proposed by Cialdini et al.,
namely, t hat a commi t ment to the target
behavior develops. Instead, the results of all
three experiments presented in the present
research suggest that an unful fi l l ed obliga-
tion to the requester may be responsible for
the effectiveness of the low-ball procedure.
In Experiment 1, which provided the most
direct test of the task versus person com-
mitment hypotheses, the low-ball t echni que
was effective only when the same person
raised the cost of the initial request. When
the higher cost version of the i ni t i al request
was presented by a different person, no in-
creased compliance over the control condi-
tion was found. Experiment 2 found that the
second request did not have to be a higher
cost version of the i ni t i al request. When sub-
jects were unable to comply wi t h the initial
low-cost request, they showed enhanced
compliance with a higher cost request from
the same person, even when the second re-
quest was unrelated to the first. Finally, Ex-
periment 3 demonstrated the i mport ance of
the nonperformance of the initial request.
Indi vi duals who were not allowed to perform
the initial request were more likely to comply
with the second request presented by the
same person t han were those allowed to per-
form the initial request. The results of all
t hree studies provide support for the view
t hat the effectiveness of the low-ball com-
pliance technique is dependent on an unf ul -
filled obligation to a part i cul ar person rat her
than a commi t ment to a specific target be-
havior.
Low-Ball Versus Foot-in-the-Door
Given the above analysis, it seems neces-
sary to clarify the relationship between the
low-ball procedure and the foot-in-the-door
t echni que as i ni t i al l y identified by Freed-
man and Fraser (1966). Ci aldi ni et al. sug-
gested that the difference between the two
compliance techniques was t hat the low-ball
procedure relied on inducing a commitment
to the i ni t i al target behavior, whereas the
foot-in-the-door procedure did not. How-
ever, Experiment 1 st rongly indicated t hat
the effectiveness of the low-ball procedure
did not depend on inducing a commitment
to the i ni t i al target behavior. If it did, en-
hanced compliance should have occurred
even when the second request was presented
by a di fferent person, but it did not. Also,
Experi ment 2 demonstrated t hat the effec-
tiveness of the low-ball procedure was not
affected when the initial request was for a
behavior very di ffer ent from the second,
more costly request. Thus, a commitment to
the i ni t i al target behavior does not appear
necessary for producing the low-ball effect
and t herefore cannot di st i ngui sh the low-ball
from the foot-in-the-door technique.
Another apparent difference between the
two procedures concerns the subject's per-
formance of the initial request. Whereas
Cialdini et al.'s low-ball subjects were not
allowed to perform the request at the initial
cost, foot-in-the-door subjects typically per-
form the initial request. Consistent with the
self-perception interpretation of the foot-in-
the-door phenomenon (Bern, 1972), the per-
formance of this behavior can be seen as
enhancing the subject's self-perception t hat
he or she is the type of person who engages
in such behaviors. However, some investi-
gators (Snyder & Cunni ngham, 1975; Zuck-
erman, Lazzaro, & Waldgeir, 1979) have
successfully produced a foot-in-the-door ef-
fect without the performance of the initial
behavior (cf. DeJong, 1979). Consistent with
this finding, subjects in Experiment 3 who
agreed to but were not allowed to perform
the initial request from one person complied
significantly more often than the control sub-
jects to a second, larger request presented
by a different individual.
5
Thus, whether the
subject is allowed to perform the initial re-
5
The foot-in-the-door effect did not emerge in Ex-
periment 1 when a di ffe r e nt requester presented the sec-
ond request, because in t hat study, subjects had an ex-
t ernal reason for agreeing to the i n i t i a l request (i.e.,
getting an extra hour of credit), so there was no need
to search for an i nt e r nal explanat i on. Thus, the self-
perception process would be unl i ke l y to occur.
500 JERRY M. BURGER AND RICHARD E. PETTY
quest does not appear to be the crucial dis-
tinction between the foot-in-the-door and the
low-ball procedures.
The foot-in-the-door effect appears to oc-
cur when an individual who agrees to per-
form (though does not necessarily perform)
a small request comes to view hi m- or herself
in a manner t hat makes him or her more
susceptible to a second, more costly request
from either the same or a di fferent person.
Thus, it is likely t hat there is a component
of the foot-in-the-door effect in each of the
four experimental conditions in Experi-
ment 3.
However, one of the experimental condi-
tions in Experiment 3 produced significantly
more compliance than the others. Something
uni que appears to occur when (a) the person
does not perform the initial agreed-upon
smaller request, and (b) the second, larger
request is presented by the same person.
Joint occurrence of these two conditions pro-
duces an unfulfi lled obligation to the i ni t i al
requester, which is not present in the other
three experimental cells (i.e., when the ini-
tial behavior is performed and/or the second
request comes from a di fferent person). This
addi t i onal psychological process (an u n f u l -
filled commi t ment to a person), called the
low-ball effect, appears to be responsible for
producing compliance above t hat whi ch
would be expected fr om the foot-in-the-door
procedure alone.
References
Bern, D. J. Self-perception theory. In L. Ber kowi t z
(Ed. ), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Mi l l e r ,
J. A. The l ow-bal l procedure for pr oduci ng compli -
ance: Commi t me nt t he n cost. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 463-476.
DeJong, W. An exami nat i on of the self-perception me-
di at i on of the foot -i n-t he-door effect. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 2221-
2239.
Freedman, J. L., & Eraser, S. C. Compl i ance wi t ho u t
pressure: The foot -i n-t he-door t echni que. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1 9 66, 4, 1 9 5-202.
Snyder, M., & Cunni ngham, M. R. To comply or not
comply: Testing the self-percept i on expl anat i on of the
"foot-in-the-door" phe nome non. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 64-67.
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R. , & Bonoma, T. V.
Cognitive dissonance: Pri vat e r at i oci nat i on or publ i c
spectacle? American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 685-
695.
Zuckerman, M., Lazzaro, M. M., Waldgeir, D. Un-
dermi ni ng effects of the foot-in-the-door technique
wi t h ext ri nsi c reward. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 1979, 9, 292-296.
Received July 28, 1980
Manus cr i pt s Accepted for Publ i cat i on in the Section
Int erpersonal Relations and Gr oup Processes
The Re l a t i ons hi p of Abi l i t y to Decode the Spouse and Abi l i t y to Decode Opposite Sex Ot her s . Pat r i ci a
Nol l er (Ani mal Behavi our Un i t , Depar t ment of Psychology, Uni ve r s i t y of Queensl and, St . Luci a,
Queensland 4067, Aus t r a l i a ).
Vocal and Verbal Assertiveness i n Same- and Mixed-Sex Groups. Charles E. Ki mbl e (De pa r t me n t of
Psychology, Uni ve r s i t y of Dayt on, Dayt on, Ohio 45469), and Joyce C. Yos hi kawa.