Visual and Esoteric forms of 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