Perceptual contrast versus reciprocal concession as mediators of induced compliance.

Abstract

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.