Robert Cialdini (2001), states that six main laws or principles of social influence can be distinguished. They are the principles of reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity. (Location 350)
The approach consisting in an argument constructed on six rules of social influence does, however, have certain flaws. First and foremost, it should be acknowledged that all techniques of social influence (or at least the majority of them) can be counted as one of these rules. Cialdini himself is of this opinion, but this is not so obvious to many other researchers. (Location 354)
It is also worth noting that Cialdini uses descriptions of various tricks and techniques as specific illustrations of the rules he himself has differentiated, rendering the book coherent and believable. The problem is, among researchers there is no consensus as to the psychological basis for the effectiveness of particular means of exerting influence on people. (Location 358)
Sequential techniques are based in the assumption that we can boost the potential of another person’s acceding to our request, succumbing to urging, taking advantage of a proposal or carrying out a demand by presenting a different request (suggestion, proposal, command) first. (Location 444)
if someone convinces us to cede a bit of ground, the chances increase that we will take a much larger step back. To look at it from a different perspective: if we want someone to agree to fulfil a difficult request, we should first ask him to fulfil a clearly simpler one. (Location 453)
It is commonly known that people are more likely to fulfil the requests of people (and likely institutions) they are familiar with than of those they are not. (Location 469)
Freedman and Fraser thus proved in this experiment that the trick “first a small request, then a big one – the real one” is an effective social influence technique. They also proposed the name foot-in-the-door for this technique. (Location 484)
The results of this experiment indicate that the “foot-in-the-door” technique is at its most effective when both requests are similar in content (in this case, both of them concern road traffic safety) and involve similar activity (expressing consent to the presence of visual propaganda). (Location 514)
What is important and should be emphasized is that the person who requested consent to install a billboard behaved as though he had nothing in common with the person who had made the introductory request. Second, it should be noted that 2 weeks passed between the initial and the second request. The first of these facts indicates that the “foot-in-the-door” technique does not owe its effectiveness to any interpersonal mechanisms (e.g. the establishment of a bond between the person formulating the request and the person to whom it is addressed, nor any particular obligation resulting from such an interaction that would induce the addressee of the request to fulfil further ones). The second of the aforementioned facts, however, suggests that the technique under discussion here is not based on any sort of short-term mechanism. With these issues in mind, Freedman and Fraser took on the assumption that an individual who agrees without being placed under pressure (threats, blackmail, offer of financial reward, etc.) to fulfil the first request will then begin to view himself as “the kind of person who does this sort of thing, who agrees to requests made by strangers, who takes action on things he believes in, who cooperates with good causes” (Freedman & Fraser, 1966, p. 201). The authors posit the presence of a principle that was later elaborated in full by Daryl Bem (1967, 1972) and is presently referred to as self-perception theory. (Location 523)
The answers to questions about what leads to one’s own reactions, decisions and choices are generally located in the external world (someone induced us to do something, someone forced us, someone offered a large reward, someone did a favour for us previously). However, in the absence of such factors, or when they are not very convincing as explanations for our own reactions, we come to the conclusion that the root causes lie within – in our own attitudes, convictions and inclinations. (Location 537)
The theory of self-perception is most often referred to in the literature as the psychological underpinning for the effectiveness of the “foot-in-the-door” technique. Someone who accedes to the first, initial request begins to question why he has done so. Not finding any sensible external explanation (nobody has blackmailed him, nobody has offered him serious money for doing so), he arrives at the conclusion that his own preferences and convictions must be at the heart of the decision. Put differently, he comes to the conclusion that he possesses attitudes and convictions that are consistent with that decision. (Location 559)
The foot-in-the-door technique is exploited extensively in totalitarian political systems. New regimes rarely require extremely immoral acts from their subjects at the beginning, but rather step up their demands over time, escalating the expectations and requirements addressed to them (Location 587)
The link between offering a reward for fulfilling an initial request and decreased effectiveness of the foot-in-the-door technique is also confirmed by the results of various meta-analyses (e.g. Burger, 1999; Dillard et al., 1984). (Location 618)
The person who has been given help is generally nice, usually smiles and says thank you. This leads to a change in the attitude of the individual towards the very act of providing assistance. He then begins to perceive altruistic activities as a general human obligation, and it also seems relatively unlikely to him that something bad would happen to an individual offering help. (Location 645)
