Perceptual contrast versus reciprocal concession as mediators of induced compliance

This study examined two explanations for the success of a compliance strategy in which a second moderate-sized request is asked immediately after the refusal of a first largesized request. The reciprocal concessions explanation argues that the change from the first request to the second is viewed as a concession on the part of the requestor that compels the subject to make a concession of his own, i.e., agree to the second request. The perceptual contrast explanation proposes that the first request establishes a comparison standard against which the second request appears to be less costly; without the first request, the second request might be compared with the possibility of doing nothing for the requestor. The results supported the view that the critical manipulation in eliciting compliance is the reduction of relative cost to the subject and not the personal concession shown by the requestor. In the popular comic strip Blondie, one episode has recurred many times over the years. In the scene, Blondie enters the living room wearing a new hat, new shoes, and a new dress. She cheerfully calls her husband's attention to the wonderful bargains she has found. Her husband, Dagwood, glares reproachfully at her from the couch and demands to know how much it all cost. After Blondie reveals the price, Dagwood becomes hysterical and orders Blondie to return the goods because he can't afford them. Blondie, in turn, begins to cry and bargains with Dagwood to keep only the hat. Observing her distress, Dagwood relents. Later the reader discovers that all Blondie wanted in the first place was the hat. The scene ends happily with Blondie congratulating herself for the success of her ploy and with Dagwood satisfied that the dress and shoes are to be returned. What are the important elements of this tactic that has served Blondie so well? Examining the situation from Blondie's point of view, we see that she has made essentially two requests of her husband. The first Requests for reprints should be sent to Clive Seligman, Department of Psychology, Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540. We wish to thank Bruce Byrd, Eve Mandorf, Bobbe Miller, and Martin Pasko for serving as experimenters. CANAD. J. BEHAV. SCI./REV. CANAD. SCI. COMP., 8(4), 1976 4 0 2 MILLER, SELIGMAN, CLARK, & BUSH consisted of asking his permission to keep the hat, dress, and shoes, the second to keep only the hat. In retracting the first request, which was refused by Dagwood, Blondie (a) reduced the cost of compliance for Dagwood, and (b) appeared to have made a significant personal concession. The outcome was fruitful for Blondie because she induced Dagwood to allow her to keep the hat, the original intention of her strategy. Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler, & Darby (1975) have argued forcefully that compliance shown in situations such as the above occurs because of a reciprocal concessions rule which regulates the behaviour of participants. The reciprocal concessions rule states that "You should make concessions to those who make concessions to you" (Cialdini et al., 1975, p. 206). Cialdini et al. cited evidence from the reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) and bargaining literature (Chertkoff & Conley, 1967; Benton, Kelley, & Liebling, 1972) and concluded that the offer of a small favour or a concession by one participant increases the likelihood that the other participant will return the favour or make a similar concession. In a series of three experiments, Cialdini et al. showed that it is indeed an effective strategy to make an unreasonably large request and follow it with a much smaller one. In the Blondie example, Cialdini et al. would probably argue that Blondie's concession, the reduction of her demands for a hat, dress, and a pair of shoes to the simple request for a hat, compelled Dagwood to offer a concession of his own. Since Dagwood's alternatives were dichotomous (he could either allow her to keep the hat or not), the only way he could make a concession would be to let Blondie have the hat. There are two ways in which one could decide whether a concession has been made. First, one could focus on the requestor. A concession can be said to have been made if the requestor, by making the second request, appears to have given up something; it must be clear to the other party that the requestor has abandoned his first choice and is willing to accept less. A second way one could view a concession is by focusing on the person to whom the request was addressed. This person will perceive that a concession has been made if he concludes that he will gain more or lose less by agreeing to the second request than the first. The interesting twist to this analysis is that the yielding on the part of the requestor and the gaining or losing less on the part of the other person can be mutually exclusive. While it is probably true, as Cialdini et al. have pointed out, that the yielding and gaining aspects of concession usually occur together, they are distinguishable theoretically and can be manipulated separately. In the Cialdini et al. experiments, it is impossible to specify whether the yielding or gaining component was more responsible for the success of the large-then-small request strategy. Cialdini et al. suggested strongly that the yielding component was more important. Their explanation is that it is MEDIATORS OF COMPLIANCE 4 0 3 precisely because the requestor has shown that he is willing to lessen his demand that the other person agrees to yield and acquiesces to the second request. However, it is entirely possible that compliance is given to the second request not as a function of the reciprocal concessions rule, but because the person who is the object of the requests perceives the second request as less costly than the first and therefore a more reasonable request with which to comply. It is important to distinguish between the yielding and gaining components of concession for two reasons: (1) very different practical compliance strategies derive from each component. The yielding strategy would emphasize the sacrifice of the requestor while the gaining strategy would emphasize the lessened cost to the subject. (2) The reciprocity explanation may only be appropriate if the yielding component proves to be essential. If the gaining component is shown to be crucial, then a perceptual contrast type of explanation may be required. In addition to examining the separate effects on compliance of the yielding and gaining components, the present study was also designed to include a behavioural as well as an attitudinal measure of compliance. There were four conditions in the present study. The first two conditions replicated the Cialdini et al. conditions. The first condition combined the manipulations of yielding and gaining. It consisted of a large request which, when refused, was followed by a smaller one. The second condition, the control, was a single request that was the same as the second request in the other conditions. Two additional conditions were designed to distinguish between the yielding and gaining components. In the yielding-only condition two similar requests were made, the second of which was described as equally costly to the subject, equally important to the program for which the requestor was working, but not as personally advantageous for the requestor. In the gaining-only condition, the two requests were described as equally costly to the subject in terms of his time commitment and equally advantageous for the requestor. However, the second request was said to be easier for the subject to perform.