Requesting

An Introduction

Outline

• Illustration of a request tactic

• Nature of request techniques

• Research developments

• Discussion/applications

Requesting

• Compliance

• Request

Requesting

• Request– ‘Do X’– Language, clarity of expression of the behavioral

model– Implied, ‘could I borrow your car?’– Hints– Expectation of performance

• ‘N, do X’, explicit or context– Scheduling– Compliance test– Permissiveness– Clarity versus effectiveness

Requesting

• Langer et al. 1978, Experiment 1– Scripts

• Request + excuse

– Careful processing• Novelty, cost

– Experiment• Small/large request• Good/poor excuse

Table 2.1

Messages Used in Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz (1978, Experiment 1)

    Component of Message

Experimental condition Salutation Cost Request Reason

No reason

Low cost Excuse me. I have 5 copies. May I use the Xerox machine?

High cost Excuse me. I have 20 copies. May I use the Xerox machine?

Placebic reason

Low cost Excuse me. I have 5 copies. May I use the Xerox machine?; because I have to make copies.

High cost Excuse me. I have 20 copies. May I use the Xerox machine?; because I have to make copies.

Real reason

Low cost Excuse me. I have 5 copies. May I use the Xerox machine?; because I'm in a hurry.

  High cost Excuse me. I have 20 copies. May I use the Xerox machine?; because I'm in a hurry.

Figure 2.1: Technique sequences. The model of request response addresses the problem of how the recipient is able to respond rapidly to requests. If the request is low in cost and has no reason (topmost line), compliance is automatic. If a low cost request is followed by a reason, people process reason content and the quality of the reason affects level of compliance. The good reason leads to more compliance than the poor reason. When a high cost request is given, the request is processed. High cost mitigates compliance. However, a good reason reduces the dampening effect of cost on compliance more than does a poor reason. These processes occur within a context of stranger interaction in which source and recipient have a good deal in common.

context (low cost, request) (response)[ ]

context (low cost, request, good reason) (response)[ ]

context (high cost, request) (response)[ ]

context (high cost, request, good reason) (response)[ ]

context (low cost, request, poor reason) (response)[ ]

context (high cost, request, poor reason) (response)[ ]

0.6

0.24

0.93

0.24

0.94

0.42

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Com

plia

nce

None Poor GoodType of reason

Small favorLarge favor

Figure 2.2: Proportion agreeing to the favor as a function of type of reason and size of request. An experimenter approached individuals while alone using a Xerox machine and asked to use the machine. Langer et al. found that the user would respond without much thought to a small request (to use 5 copies). Even when the excuse given for making copies at the machine was a poor one, recipients complied at a high rate. However, when the favor was large, only a good reason produced elevated compliance. Evidently, people think carefully about what people are asking them to do when compliance is expected to be costly.

Figure 2.3: Factors in social influence. Boxes made up of solid lines represent situational factors in influence. These can be manipulated by the influence source in his or her attempt to alter the conduct of the influence recipient. All of the external factors must be present before influence can occur. Boxes composed in dotted lines represent cognitions that must be changed to make influence possible.

Context

BehaviorAttitude

Interaction

Perception of object

Opportunity

Compliance test

Dynamics of Requesting

• A lot going on– Interactional context– Commencement of interaction– Request– Cost cues– Morality cues– Scheduling– Compliance test– Opportunity to respond

Dynamics of Requesting

• Interactional context– Selection of participants

• University students

– Selection of context• University library with frequently used photocopiers

– Attitude activation• Cognition• Affect• Behavioral readiness

– Arena for compliance (opportunity)

Dynamics of Requesting

• Commencement of interaction– Source interrupts recipient, “Excuse me.”– Existing attitude participation– Participation attitude elaboration

• Example of compliance/commitment• “Agree” to put photocopy job on hold• Conversation rules now apply• Know source probably wants something• Affect—ambivalent• Behavior—conversational routines

– Opportunity—particularization of the relationship

Dynamics of Requesting

• Request adds behavioral detail– Attitude focused information search– Request volley– Request attitude

• Specifics of behavior• Expectation of performance• Evaluation threat• Cost threat• Affect—ambivalence• Behavioral readiness—approach-avoidance

Dynamics of Requesting

• Cost cue– Attitude cost vigilance– Cost information provided

• Important cue – Instrumental function

• Inhibited compliance

– Why provide cost information at all?• Worst case, honest (low-balling), long term rn, goal all along

– Affect/behavior—small request brings relief/removes inhibition

Dynamics of Requesting

• Moral relevance– Attitude open to moral arguments– Excuse attitude

• Deservingness information– 5-page—ceiling effect– 20-page—mitigated decrease

• “Gradual” development of a behavioral leaning

Dynamics of Requesting

• Scheduling/compliance test– Immediate deadline

• Cues to immediate response– Default, why ask now?, conversation

Figure 2.4. Event schedule offered in a request situation. In communicating a request, a source of influence provides a schedule of events, which includes as its principal element the time when expected behavior should occur. The recipient in such a situation is also left with a period of time to think before behavior is to take place. Thus, scheduling in a request situation gives cues on time offered to think before a response is required and when the response is to occur. A common form of event scheduling is depicted here. A request is made and a response, agree or disagree, is required only a few seconds afterward. This means that most of the time offered to plan a response occurs while the message is still being uttered.

Time

Request ends

Behavior should begin Behavior should end

Planning interval

Action intervalPre-request interval

First exposure to interactional setting

Request begins

Request interval

Dynamics of Requesting

• Scheduling/compliance test (continued)– Immediate deadline

• Limited opportunity to think• Therefore, behavioral leaning that exists

determines action

Dynamics of Requesting

• Opportunity to act– Physical setting– Interaction– Time offered

Dynamics of Requesting

• Theoretical implications– (1) Why people respond quickly

• Minimal information processing– Langer

• Applied intelligence– Attitude activation, gradual elaboration– Serves as basis of action

Dynamics of Requesting

• Theoretical implications– (2) How to construct a request

• Activate attitude• Particularize attitude• Activate an attitude capable of driving behavior

– Attitude-behavior consistency principle

Dynamics of Requesting

• Research developments

• Discussion– Applications