Introduction
You head into a car dealership and find the perfect car to impress your friends with. A salesperson tells you it's going to cost $5, 000. You agree to buy it immediately because in the end, the books for your mindset courses cost about the same. However, after you commit to buying the car, the salesperson points out that adding a stereo system, air conditioner and floor matt will cost a supplementary $800. Since you already committed yourself to purchasing the car, you concur. You drive out in your brand new car feeling just like a boss, not knowing which you go low-balled. The low-ball approach is used to gain compliance as a person is led to allow performing a goal behaviour without knowing the true cost of the need (Joule, 1987). The low-ball strategy is utilized in many true to life options, such as by sales-people in car dealerships (Glendinning, 2000) as well as for happenings like charities (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). Furthermore, the strategy is person determined, not task devoted. When you agree to buy that new car from the automobile salesmen, you invest in him, not the task. In other words, it is because of the obligation to the requester rather than commitment to the target behavior (Burger & Petty, 1981). It may seem you are immune to it but you are not. Actually, both women and men adhere to the low-ball technique in similar ways.
Why the Low-Ball Approach Works
This success of this strategy works on the principle of determination (Kiesler, 1971). Determination has been given because the individual says "yes" or agrees to an initial request. Once the request changes or becomes unreasonable, the individual will (to a diploma) find it difficult to say "no" because of having originally committed themselves. A report by Gueguen (2002) directed to prove this idea. In this research, randomly selected participants, who were passersby exiting a medical center in France, were asked to keep a puppy on a leash until a male confederate came back from a hospital visit. Inside the control condition, the confederate explained the time would be vanished for (30 minutes) whereas in the low-ball condition, he explained the time AFTER the subject had decided to keeping your dog. The results were statistically significant as more people accepted the need in the experimental condition than in the control condition. The results make clear that once the subject has decided to help the confederate, the topic sticks to that decision even if the conditions to help become more costly. After the individuals in the low-ball condition agreed to keep the dog on a leash, they stuck to their decision even after the confederate informed them that he'd be eliminated for 30 minutes. The low rate of refusal, discovered after the real cost has been stated, reinforces the persistence of an initial decision. This experiment demonstrated that the low-ball approach is not only effective on verbal behaviour but actual behavior as well. Further facts displaying that the low-ball technique works which is not just a sales myth is apparent in a report led by researchers Cialdini, Bassett, Cacioppo and Miller (1978). In this test, students were asked to participate in an test about thinking functions. Within the control condition, topics were prepared that the test begins at 7:00 a. m. before being asked if indeed they agree to take part, whereas students in the experimental condition were asked to get involved before being educated that the test starts off at 7:00 a. m. The results confirmed that more students in the low-ball condition (first agreeing to get involved and then being prepared about enough time) made a scheduled appointment as compared to the control condition. Moreover, more of the students in the low-ball condition actually came to the appointed time when compared with the control condition subjects. This is important as it implies that the low-ball strategy produces behavioural compliance in addition to verbal conformity.
Through such studies, it is visible that the low-ball technique works well and produces not just verbal compliance but also behaviour compliance. However, in these studies, the jobs were all fairly easy and not from the norm. Could you say that the low-ball strategy works even on deviant requests? The response to that is yes! A recent study released by Gueguen and Pascual (2014) directed to confirm this. On this study, a request was designed to subjects. After the subjects agreed, these were enlightened that the get described deviant behaviours. In essence, subjects were asked for a lighter and after agreement on the subject's part, the confederate required out a large joint of cannabis. The brings about the study were significant because subject matter looked after their decision even though the get became evidently more deviant. A second experiment was completed in which compliance with different degrees of deviant behaviours was examined. Results proved that overall compliance decreased as the demand became more difficult. However, results also confirmed that at each level, the low-ball condition increased compliance with the ultimate request. The participants in the low-ball condition were more likely to agree to the final (most deviant) demand than the individuals in the control condition. These experiments show that the low-ball technique continues to be effective even though the behaviours requested were deviant or illegitimate. In these two experiments, the higher level of compliance associated with low-balling appears to show that the pressure to comply is high and which makes your choice to refuse more difficult. People who are committed to an initial behaviour will attempt to act consistent with their original decision, even if the behavior request appears less rewarding or even more problematic.
What is necessary for it to work?
Pretend you ask your friend to babysit your little sibling for a couple of hours to be able to go out and party. After they agree, tell them that you are actually going to look sleep at a friend's house and this it will require more than a few hours, so they'll have to remain the night. They will agree to stay the whole night and you will finally get to go out (after all of the studying you performed whilst watching bad movies on Netflix). This may seem not difficult but there are many guidelines you have to check out to ensure that the low-ball strategy works:
- The first decision should be produced with a high amount of choice
An test was conducted by Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, & Miller (1978) to ascertain whether the amount of volition (high vs. low) influenced conformity in the low-ball condition. Students enrolled in an introductory psychology course were asked to take part in an experiment for just one hour of credit. The participants read explanations of two testing: the California F range and the Countrywide involvement scale. Within the low-ball condition, students were informed that the Country wide Involvement size would be well worth two time of credit. In the high violation condition, they were given the decision between your two exams. In the low violation condition, students were designated to use one of the two tests (that was always the National Participation test). The results showed that the low-ball approach is more effective when the initial decision is made with free choice (high volition condition). A possible reason for this is that when a person widely chooses to perform an action, he/she seems accountable for it (Kiesler, 1971). Also, individuals are less inclined to change a conclusion when they are focused on it to be able to avoid negative self-perceptions (e. g. , impulsiveness, a lack of brains or incompetent decision-making, etc. ).
- Allowing people to respond
An experiment was conducted by Burger and Cornelius (2003) to ascertain whether to be able to respond has an effect on compliance. In this analysis, students living on-campus were asked to donate to a scholarship finance over the phone. Content in the low-ball condition were asked whether they wanted to donate $5 for a free of charge discount at Jamba Drink. If the content accepted, the experimenter advised them that they had go out of coupons then asked whether they would still like to donate. Individuals in the interrupt condition been told the same submission but the experimenter did not pause after asking the very first time if the participant wished to donate. Alternatively, the experimenter immediately told the participant that there have been forget about coupons. Within the control condition, participants were asked to contribute $5 to the account without any reference to coupons. The results revealed that participants in the low-ball condition were more likely to agree to the target submission than individuals in either the interrupt condition or the control condition. For the reduced ball strategy to work, folks have to be able to respond to the initial request before experiencing the ultimate cost. Actually, when people were averted from replying, it actually led to a reduction in compliance as compared to the control group.
- Kindly detailing why the initial need was changed
Maj's review (as cited in Gamian-Wilk, 2007) targeted to determine whether polite behavior impacts conformity in the low-ball strategy. Students in the first and second years at the Advanced School of Social Mindset were wanted to buy books. The results demonstrated that for the strategy to work, you must politely clarify why the initial proposal was modified. Polite behavior exerts significant affect on the procedure of decision-making as it lessens the number of withdrawals from the original decision.
Foot-in-the-door approach vs. the low-ball technique
Similar to the low-ball strategy, the foot-in-the-door approach is one other way to gain compliance. Both these techniques hold the subjects execute a target behaviour insurance firms them allow to a short submission. However, in the low-ball strategy, there is merely one behaviour the things have to execute (the initial and final demands are related to the target behavior) whereas in the foot-in-the-door approach, the content have to perform two behaviours (the initial and final question related to different behaviours). A study by Joule regarding tobacco deprivation was conducted to find out which technique is more effective. In the study, topics were asked to abstain from smoking for 18 time. In one condition, the low-ball approach was used to gain compliance whereas in the other condition, the foot-in-the-door approach was used. Results clearly favored the low-ball technique due to its higher degree of cognitive dedication to the prospective behaviour which results in more conformity. In the foot-in-the-door technique, the initial request and the ultimate submission pertain to different behaviours, therefore the participant is not as committed.
