Psychologists (especially social psychologists) have been researching manipulation techniques for decades. It is becoming increasingly apparent that sometimes it only takes a single phrase to increase the likelihood that another person will comply with our request. The following techniques seem to be particularly effective:

1. “Evoking freedom” technique

2. “This is my only request” technique.

3. Legitimization of a paltry contribution technique.

4. “You will probably refuse…” technique

5. Foot-in-the-mouth technique

Since these manipulation techniques can be easily incorporated into everyday speech and many people do this automatically anyway, they are difficult for us to recognize. Nevertheless, as is often the case, the more familiar we are with these techniques, the better we can protect ourselves against them.

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Andrews, K. R., Carpenter, C. J., Shaw, A. S., & Boster, F. J. (2008). The legitimization of paltry favors effect: A review and meta-analysis. Communication Reports, 21(2), 59-69.

Bolkan, S., & Rains, S. A. (2017). The legitimization of paltry contributions as a compliance-gaining technique: A meta-analysis testing three explanations. Communication Research, 44(7), 976-996.

Carpenter, C. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique. Communication Studies, 64(1), 6-17.

Guéguen, N. (2016). “You will probably refuse, but…”: When activating reactance in a single sentence increases compliance with a request. Polish Psychological Bulletin.

Dolinski, D., Grzyb, T., Olejnik, J., Prusakowski, S., & Urban, K. (2005). Let’s Dialogue About Penny: Effectiveness of Dialogue Involvement and Legitimizing Paltry Contribution Techniques 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1150-1170.

Fointiat, V. (2000). “Foot-in-the-Mouth” versus “Door-in-the-Face” requests. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 264-266.

Grzyb, T., & Doliński, D. (2017). “This is my only request”–using the ‘Omega’strategy to boost the success of charity drives. European Review of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 181-185.

Howard, D. J. (1990). The influence of verbal responses to common greetings on compliance behavior: The foot‐in‐the‐mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(14), 1185-1196.

Farley, S. D., Kelly, J., Singh, S., Thornton Jr, C., & Young, T. (2019). “Free to Say No”: Evoking freedom increased compliance in two field experiments. The Journal of social psychology, 159(4), 482-489.

_________

About: Social Psychological Influence Techniques

Social psychological influence techniques are behaviors aimed at influencing the opinions or actions of others. They are used in many areas of daily life, from sales promotion to political campaigning. Some of the most well-known social psychological influence techniques are the foot-in-the-door technique, the door-in-the-face technique, the low-ball technique, and the that’s-not-all technique.

The “foot-in-the-door” technique is based on the assumption that people are more willing to fulfill a larger request after they have already fulfilled a smaller request. A well-known study that examined this technique is that of Freedman and Fraser (1966). In this study, the researchers first asked for a small favor (e.g., to hang a small sign) before asking for a larger favor (e.g., huge sign in the front yard). The results showed that those who had initially performed the small favor were more willing to perform the larger favor as well.

The door-in-the-face technique is based on the assumption that people are more willing to fulfill a smaller request after refusing a larger request. A well-known study that examined this technique is that of Cialdini et al. (1975). In this study, researchers first asked for a very large favor (e.g., to participate in a study for a week) before asking for a smaller favor (e.g., to complete a questionnaire). The results showed that those who had initially refused the large favor were more willing to perform the smaller favor as well.

Sometimes situations turn out to be much worse than we initially thought. Nevertheless, we often do not pull back. Unfortunately, this human behavior can be exploited using the low-ball technique …

Sometimes situations turn out to be much worse than we initially thought. Nevertheless, we often do not pull back. Unfortunately, this human behavior can be exploited using the low-ball technique …

The Door-in-the-Face-Technique is one of the most famous influence techniques. It’s effectiveness could be shown in many different studies.
But does it work with children as well?

The Door-in-the-Face-Technique is one of the most famous inlfuence techniques. It’s effectiveness could be shown in many different studies.
The Door in the face Influence Tactic was tested in a Restaurant Setting…

The Door-in-the-Face-Technique is one of the most famous inlfuence techniques. It’s effectiveness could be shown in many different studies.

The Door-in-the-Face-Technique is one of the most famous inlfuence techniques. It’s effectiveness could be shown in many different studies.
But can you increase the effectiveness of the famous influence tactic?

Literatur

Lecat, B., Hilton, D. J., & Crano, W. D. (2009). Group status and reciprocity norms: Can the door-in-the-face effect be obtained in an out-group context?. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(3), 178.

The Door-in-the-Face-Technique is one of the most famous influence techniques. It’s effectiveness could be shown in many different studies.

But can you increase the effectiveness of the famous influence tactic?

Can you increase compliance rates by involving strangers into a everyday-dialogue (smalltalk)? And what happens if you combine this technique with the “Even a penny will help”-technique?

Can you increase compliance rates by involving strangers into a everyday-dialogue (smalltalk)? And does this influence technique even work if you disagree with the other person?