Let's Dialogue About Penny: Effectiveness of Dialogue Involvement and Legitimizing Paltry...

1150

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2005, 35, 6, pp. 1150-1170.Copyright © 2005 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

Let’s Dialogue About Penny:Effectiveness of Dialogue Involvement and

Legitimizing Paltry Contribution Techniques1

DARIUSZ DOLINSKI2 AND TOMASZ GRZYBWarsaw School of Social Psychology

Wroclaw FacultyWroclaw, Poland

JACEK OLEJNIK, SLAWOMIR PRUSAKOWSKI, ANDKATARZYNA URBAN

University of OpoleOpole, Poland

Earlier research has shown (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976) that the statement “Even a pennywill help” added to a standard request for charity donation considerably increases the prob-ability of carrying it out. The present study tested the effectiveness of this technique in var-ious contexts in a set of 3 field experiments conducted on the streets of 2 Polish cities. Theresults proved, first, that success can be strengthened when combined with a dialogue inwhich a requester is involved prior to being asked for a donation. Second, it was shownthat the dialogue itself produced more compliance than did a monologue. Third, it wasdemonstrated that dialogue related to the content of the requested issue may or may notresult in an increase in compliance, presumably depending on the in-group/out-groupfocus of the dialogue’s content. Practical implications for charity donation are offered.

Every day we are asked to carry out various requests. Many of those requestscome from persons close to us: family members, friends, or professional col-leagues. Some of the requests are rather costly (e.g., when your spouse asks youto go shopping with her just as the National Basketball Association finals beginon television). Similarly, your boss might ask you to do additional work on aweekend on which you made plans long ago. Or a friend might ask you to lend

1Preparation of this article was supported by Komitet Badan Naukowych (the Polish Committeefor Scientific Research), Grant 5H01F 05220. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for theirinsightful comments on two earlier versions of this article and Wilhelmina Wosinska for her help inimproving the language of the paper.

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dariusz Dolinski, WarsawSchool of Social Psychology, Wroclaw Faculty, ul. Grunwaldzka 98, 50-357 Wroclaw, Poland. E-mail: [email protected]

LET’S DIALOGUE ABOUT PENNY 1151

him a large sum of money when you have just saved enough to buy somethingthat you have dreamed of.

We also encounter various requests from people whom we do not know. Astreet seller encourages you to buy compact disks, socks, or newspapers; a beggarasks for financial support; a door-to-door salesman wants you to buy a vacuumcleaner; a charity representative appeals for a donation.

The compliance literature describes multiple techniques of social influenceemployed by individuals in order to increase their chance to carry out theirrequests, suggestions, and wishes. Techniques that have received the most atten-tion include the foot-in-the-door (Freedman & Fraser, 1966), door-in-the-face(Cialdini et al., 1975), lowball (Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, & Miller, 1978),that’s-not-all (Burger, 1986), fear-then-relief (Dolinski & Nawrat, 1998), pique(Santos, Leve, & Pratkanis, 1994), and disruption-then-reframe (Davis &Knowles, 1999) techniques.

One of most intriguing among these techniques of social influence is based onthe assumption that the statement “Even a penny will help” added to a standardrequest for charity donation considerably increases the probability of carrying itout without decreasing the average sum of money offered by the benefactor(Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976). What is the mechanism underlying the effective-ness of this technique? It is commonly assumed that a typical person asked for adonation must resolve a specific dilemma. On the one hand, he or she knows thatthe charity is worthy of support; on the other hand, he or she does not want towaste money. As a result, a person confronted by such a dilemma typicallyresolves it by adopting a solution that allows him or her to preserve a positiveself-image and create a good impression on others, despite offering no support tocharity. Such an individual adopts the following thinking: “I would be glad to doit, but I can’t afford it,” or “I am a poor person myself.” What may block such anexcuse is a request for a noncostly offer to charity by appealing for a minimumcontribution: “Even a penny will help.” Everyone can afford a penny, right? Yet,it is important that the requester does not indicate that he or she means “onepenny” precisely. As a result, individuals requested to donate the symbolic singlepenny typically give much more.

In the original study that tested the effectiveness of this technique (Cialdini &Schroeder, 1976), an experimenter knocked on a participant’s door and askedfor a donation aimed at helping cancer victims. In the experimental group,the expression “Even a penny will help” was added to the standard request.It turned out that this simple extra statement increased the frequency ofdonations while maintaining the average amount of donations. The effectivenessof this practice—known since then as even-a-penny-will-help, legitimizing-a-paltry-sum, or legitimizing-a-paltry-contribution technique—was confirmed inCialdini and Schroeder’s (1976) additional experiment, as well as in many otherstudies (e.g., Brockner, Guzzi, Kane, Levine, & Shaplen, 1984; Fraser & Hite,

1152 DOLINSKI ET AL.

1989; Reeves & Saucer, 1993; Reingen, 1978; Weyant & Smith, 1987, Experi-ment 1).

The effectiveness of the technique allowing a paltry contribution’s legitimiza-tion was also tested in a situation in which requests for financial support weremailed instead of being formulated face to face. Except for one study in whichthis technique was effective (Weyant & Smith, 1987, Experiment 2), a loss in thetechnique’s impact was observed in all other studies (e.g., DeJong & Oopik,1992; Doob & McLaughlin, 1989). Perrine and Heather (2000) came up withanother idea for a context in which to study the effectiveness of the “Even-a-penny-will-help” technique. They placed donation boxes in various spots acrossthe city, requesting money to help animals. In the experimental condition, theappeal to support an organization collecting funds was accompanied by the state-ment “Even a penny will help.” This procedure did not improve the effect of thisfundraising, compared to the standard request condition.

The results of the various studies on the effectiveness of even-a-penny-will-help technique may lead one to conclude that in order to increase compliance bylegitimizing a paltry contribution, a direct interaction between the requester andthe potential donor is necessary. Such a conclusion seems congruent withCialdini and Schroeder’s (1976) supposition that in the case of even-a-penny-will-help technique, compliance is determined by the participant’s desire to avoidappearing stingy or cheap. The results of the studies reviewed so far also seem toindicate that the basic goal for a potential donor is to avoid a negative assessmentof him or her by other people, rather than suffer from negative self-evaluation. Inthe situation in which the requester is physically absent, the technique loses itseffectiveness (for a review, see Dillard, Anderson, & Knobloch, 2002).

Why does this happen? We propose that in the search for an answer to thisquestion, one more social-influence technique should be considered: dialogueinvolvement. Dolinski, Nawrat, and Rudak (2001) recently showed that if therequest was preceded with casual dialogue between the requester and the respon-dent, then it was fulfilled more frequently than in a condition in which therequester approached the participant with a monologue type of interaction. Thisoutcome held true for a charity request (i.e., collecting money for an orphanageor a charity organization working with special-needs children), a social one (i.e.,a request for a 15-min interview conducted by a Social Opinion Research Insti-tute agent), and a marketing appeal (i.e., street sales of aromatic Indian pastilles).In addition, Burger and his colleagues (Burger, Soroka, Gonzago, Murphy, &Somervell, 2001) recently showed that a short, 2-min talk arranged by a confed-erate nearly doubled the rate of compliance with the confederate’s request thandid a mere request (not preceded by the short talk).

How can the superiority of such dialogues be explained? Dolinski et al.(2001) suggested that while monologue is characteristic in interactions withstrangers, dialogue is a typical mode in interactions with persons we know


personally. Taken by surprise by a stranger who involves us in a dialogue, weautomatically activate “dealing with an acquaintance script.” It leads us to agreewith a request directed toward us in a polite manner, particularly when it is not acostly one.

It is worthy of note that the conditions where the even-a-penny-will-helptechnique was typically ineffective (i.e., when requests were mailed or presentedon a billboard) were all situations of one-way communication. However, thequestion remains as to whether in experiments proving the effectiveness of theeven-a-penny-will-help technique this key expression was or was not precededby a dialogue between the requester and his or her interlocutor.

It can be assumed that, at least in some cases, an interaction between the ask-ing and the asked can develop into a dialogue rather spontaneously. The factortriggering the dialogue, for instance, may be the exchange of greetings or com-monplace courtesies between interacting partners. It is also possible that the per-son asked, after hearing the name of a charity organization, may simply respondwith words such as “I have never heard of you” or “I have heard something aboutyou,” therefore turning an interaction into a dialogue. The requested individualcan express his or her personal approval of the volunteer’s cause or ask the char-ity representative about something more or less closely related to the request.3Each time, a mere contact may develop into a dialogue.

Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) convincingly demonstrated how the statement“Even a penny will help” blocks the possibility of justifying one’s own refusal byaccepting the guideline “I cannot afford to offer help.” At the same time, theyshowed that for the technique to be effective, it is necessary to use an expressionthat refers to legitimizing a paltry contribution, while using an equally politephrase of a different type (e.g., “Your support will count”) does not increase com-pliance.

It is important to emphasize, then, that the technique introduced by Cialdiniand Schroeder (1976) cannot be identified in any way with dialogue involve-ment. In the even-a-penny-will-help technique, compliance is triggered not bythe mode of communication but by the semantic value of the very statement. It ispossible, however, that the effectiveness of this technique depends somewhat onthe communication mode. While the response of people asked to make a charitydonation depends on their need to present themselvs as moral, helpful, andapproving of charity events, could the compliance effect become stronger if the

3If we cannot exclude the possibility that during experiments on the even-a-penny-will-help tech-nique participants can spontaneously transform confederate’s monologue into a dialogue, the questionappears why this fact is never mentioned in the articles on these studies. We suspect that it is notbecause the participants never ask questions in such studies. The possible explanation might be, how-ever, that even-a-penny-will-help technique researchers treat participants’ questions or commentsmade during the procedure as irrelevant details with no impact on the experiment development and itsresults.


people got involved into a dialogue prior to hearing the request? In contrast to amonologue, dialogue offers the participant an opportunity to perceive the inter-action partner (i.e., the requester) as an acquaintance, and this might increase theparticipant’s need to make a more favorable impression by complying with therequester.

All in all, while agreeing with Cialdini and Schroeder’s (1976) interpretationof the factors determining the even-a-penny-will-help technique’s effectiveness,we assume that dialogue involvement can even strengthen its success. In order totest this hypothesis, it is necessary to compare the technique’s effectiveness in thedialogue condition with its effectiveness in the monologue condition. To measurerelative compliance level in each of these two experimental arrangements, twocontrol groups are needed in which the “Even-a-penny-will-help” tag is notadded.

The hypothesis concerning the impact of communication mode on the effec-tiveness of the even-a-penny-will-help technique is a crucial one in this project.We expect to obtain additional empirical evidence of the effectiveness of twosocial-influence techniques; that is, the legitimizing of paltry contributions, andthe dialogue involvement. In other words, it is expected that people will fulfillrequests directed toward them more often in the dialogue condition than in themonologue condition, and more often when confronted with the statement “Evena penny will help” than in the standard request condition.

Experiment 1

A charity event was carried out in the streets of Opole, Poland. The requestfor money was formulated in a monologue or a dialogue communication mode.In each of these conditions, the even-a-penny-will-help technique was applied orwas not applied. The dependent variables were as follows: the research partici-pant donating money, and the quantity of the offered sum.

Procedure and Participants

In the experiment, we employed a 2 × 2 × 2 (Participant Gender × Communi-cation Mode: Monologue vs. Dialogue × Request Pattern: “Even a Penny WillHelp” vs. Standard Request) design. Participants were 120 Polish adults (60 male,60 female). The participants were approached by one of the confederates whilewalking alone near the University of Opole campus. Each participant wasassigned randomly to one of the four conditions. Each of the four confederates(1 female, 3 male) worked interchangeably in all conditions.

Similar to the two other studies presented in this article, confederates wereaware of the conditions; however, they were blind to the hypotheses. In addition,


they were trained to stick rigidly to the script and to keep their responses anddemeanor constant.

In both conditions without dialogue involvement, a confederate said the fol-lowing:

Good morning, I am a student at the University of Opole and a vol-unteer for the Urszula Jaworska Foundation.4 I am collectingmoney to benefit people with leukemia. Recently, this seriousproblem has been brought to public attention. Would you like tojoin us in this cause?

In both conditions with dialogue involvement, the exchange was precededwith the following statements:

— Good morning, I am a student at the University of Opole vol-unteering for the Urszula Jaworska Foundation. How serious doyou think the problem of leukemia is in our society?

— [Participant’s response, indicated henceforth by ellipses …].

— Do you think is it worth supporting institutions that help indealing with this serious societal problem?

— […]

— I am collecting money to benefit people with leukemia.Recently, this serious problem has been brought to public atten-tion. Would you like to join us in this cause?

Irrespective of the mode of communication, the confederate added or did notadd the statement “Even a penny will help.” In each case, the confederateextended toward the participant a donation box with some coins clinking inside.There were always 10 zlotys (which equals ca. US$2.50) in the box with thesame number of coins. If the participant dropped money into the box, the boxwas opened upon his or her departure so that the money could be calculated andrecorded. Upon completion of the experiment, all of the collected funds weredonated to the Urszula Jaworska Foundation.

Results

Preliminary analyses indicate that the dependent variables (frequency ofmoney donation and amount of money donated) were not affected either by a

4The Urszula Jaworska Foundation is a well-known charity organization in the region. Therefore,there was no need to explain its nature and goals.


confederate making the request or by the participant’s gender or specificity of theanswers provided by participants in the dialogue condition (regarding their atti-tude toward persons suffering from leukemia). Table 1 illustrates the percentageof participants who complied with the request and the mean donation in eachcondition.

A loglinear analysis shows that mode of communication, χ2(1, N = 120) =12.70, p < .001; and type of request, χ2(1, N = 120) = 4.50, p < .045, affectedparticipants’ compliance. In the dialogue condition, participants were more likelyto comply with the request for a donation (75.0%) than in the monologue condi-tion (43.3%). In the legitimizing-a-paltry-contribution condition, they donatedmoney more often (68.3%) than in the standard-request condition (50.0%). Thegoodness-of-fit coefficient, calculated in order to test the assumption that onlythe mode of communication and type of request are factors affecting the depen-dent variable, proved to be the most adequate explanation of the evidence ofdifferences in the likelihood of compliance (maximum likelihood χ2 = 0.46,p = .80).

The ANOVA also shows that the mean amount of money donated by partici-pants was higher in the dialogue condition (1.93 Polish zlotys, or US$0.48) thanin the monologue condition (0.79 Polish zlotys, or US$0.20), F(1, 116) = 14.39,p < .0002. The sum was higher in the legitimization-of-a-paltry-contribution con-dition (1.79 Polish zlotys, or US$0.45) than in the standard-request condition(0.94 Polish zlotys, or US$0.23), F(1, 116) = 8.08, p < .005. Although ANOVAdid not reveal a statistically significant interaction for Communication Mode ×Request Type, the series of comparisons using the Scheffé test shows that themean donation in the condition in which participants were first involved in a dia-logue and then confronted with the statement “Even a penny will help” washigher than in the other groups (p < .05). Further, among those who decided to

Table 1

Percentage of Persons Complying With Experimenter’s Request and Mean Donations in Each Experimental Condition: Experiment 1

Monologue mode Dialogue mode

Even a penny will

helpStandardrequest

Even a penny will

helpStandardrequest

Proportion of persons complying 53.3% 33.3% 83.3% 66.7%M donation (in Polish zlotys) 1.10 0.49 2.47 1.39

Note. In all experimental conditions, N = 30. 1 Polish zloty = approximately US$0.25.


put money into the box (i.e., excluding those who do not give), there were nodifferences in the mean amount of money donated between the two conditions(F < 1).

Discussion

The results of Experiment 1 suggest that both legitimization of a paltry contri-bution and dialogue involvement proved to be effective social-influence tech-niques. At the same time, they imply that dialogue involvement is not a necessarycondition of the even-a-penny-will-help technique’s effectiveness. However, itmakes the strategy more successful if both techniques are combined. A partici-pant who was involved in a dialogue before being confronted with “Even a pennywould will help” tended to put his or her hand into a pocket or to open a pursesomewhat more often, even if this difference was only marginally significant.Even if the frequency of donation was not significantly different in these twocompared conditions, the difference in amount of money donated was signifi-cantly different. Actually, this group of participants offered the largest amountcollected to help the Urszula Jaworska Foundation among all four groups.

It is difficult to determine to what degree the results were affected by the spe-cific topic of conversation in which participants were involved; that is, concernwith patients suffering from leukemia. Having 57 of the 60 participants agreewith the concern in response to the confederate’s question could have led them to“fall into their own trap” in the manner indicated by Cialdini (2001): “As I havesaid that such organizations need to be supported, then I should donate in aid ofthem now.” This type of conversation forces the requested person to generatearguments in support of the charity action, thereby convincing oneself to proceedin accordance with a reasonable and highly valued action. This activity repre-sents a form of self-generated persuasion in which the target is asked to come upwith reasons why it is important to support leukemia victims. It may be treated asan effective tactic in its own right.

Therefore, the question might be posed here, whether dialogue involvementwould enhance the even-a-penny-will-help technique also in the condition whenthe context of the interaction is not associated with the cause of the charity eventor the subsequent request. This idea is developed in Experiment 2.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2, we employed a casual dialogue by asking participants howthey feel. As Howard (1990) demonstrated, asking people about their mood andthen acknowledging satisfaction resulting from their emotional well-beingincreases compliance with the request delivered by this person. However, asDolinski et al. (2001) proved in a series of experiments, the key factor for


compliance is not asking people about their moods, but involving others in a dia-logue by asking them about their feelings. In Dolinski et al.’s (2001) research, thedialogue concerning mood brought the same compliance rate among participantsas did a dialogue involving a neutral topic. Therefore, a conversation aboutmoods can be recognized as one variant of the dialogue involvement technique.

In Experiment 2, for half of the participants, the topic of the monologue or thedialogue that preceded the request formulation was their current mood, and forother half of the participants, the monologue or the dialogue context was topic-ally associated with the subsequently formulated request.

The basic arrangement of this experiment is similar to that of Experiment 1.In this version, however, a monologue or a dialogue preceded the request for adonation. Its content was or was not related to the fundraising issue. In addition,the request was or was not followed by the statement “Even a penny will help.”Measurements of the dependent variable are the same as in Experiment 1.


In Experiment 2, we employed a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 (Participant Gender × Commu-nication Mode: Monologue vs. Dialogue × Conversation Subject: Related to theFundraising Issue or Not × Request Pattern: “Even a Penny Will Help” vs. Stan-dard Request) design. The participants were 240 adult Polish people (120 womenand 120 men). The research was conducted in the autumn of 2001, which was thetime of the conflict in Afghanistan, highly publicized by the Polish media, withthe main victims being the civilian Afghans, who lost their homes and propertyand suffered from hunger, disease, and cold. Analogous to Experiment 1, partici-pants were approached by a single confederate while walking alone in downtownOpole, Poland. Each participant was assigned randomly to one of eight experi-mental conditions. Four confederates (1 female, 3 male) took part in the experi-ment. Each confederate worked interchangeably in all eight experimentalconditions.

In the monologue condition that was not connected with the fundraisingtopic, the confederate said the following:

— Good morning, I hope you are doing fine today, and I believethat weather has a positive impact on your mood. Would you liketo contribute to a charity donation supporting Afghan refugees?

In the monologue condition that was related to the refugee issue, the confed-erate said the following:

— Good morning, I am sure you have heard about the conflict inAfghanistan. Some people think that one should help Afghan


refugees who got stuck in camps at the Pakistani border. Would youlike to contribute to a charity donation supporting Afghan refugees?

In the dialogue condition that not related to the fundraising topic, the inter-action between the confederate and the participant proceeded like this:

— Good morning, how are you doing today?

— […]

— And how has today’s weather impacted your mood?

— […]

— Would you like to contribute to a charity donation supportingAfghan refugees?

In the dialogue condition related to the fundraising topic, the conversationwas as follows:

— Good morning, have you heard about the conflict in Afghani-stan?

— […]

— Do you think it is necessary to somehow help Afghan refugeeswho got stuck in camps at the Pakistani border?

— […]

— Would you like to contribute to a charity donation supportingAfghan refugees?

Irrespective of whether the mode of interaction with the participant was amonologue or a dialogue, in the legitimization-of-a-paltry-contribution condition,the confederate completed the request with the words “Even a penny will help.”

As in Experiment 1, in each case the confederate extended a donation boxwith some coins clinking inside (again, it was a sum of 10 Polish zlotys in severalcoins equivalent to ca. US$2.50). If the participant dropped money into the box,the amount was calculated and recorded as soon as the participant departed. Allcollected funds were donated to the aid of Afghan refugees.

Results

Preliminary analyses indicated that dependent variables (i.e., frequency ofdonation and amount of money donated to the cause) were not affected either by


the confederates or by the sex of participants. Likewise, specific answers pro-vided by participants in the dialogue condition with regard to their self-reportedcurrent moods (ranging from bad to superb) had no effect on participants’ act ofdonating money (χ2 < 1 and F < 1 in each case). In the condition in which a con-versation about Afghan refugees preceded the request, almost all of the partici-pants (except for 2, who subsequently refused to give a donation) agreed withthe statement that Afghan refugees deserve some help. Table 2 illustrates thepercentage of participants who complied with the request by offering a donationand the mean amount of money donated in each experimental condition.

A loglinear analysis shows that the communication mode, χ2(1, N = 240) =27.85, p < .0001; conversation subject, χ2(1, N = 240) = 20.20, p < .0001; andtype of request, χ2(1, N = 240) = 5.98, p < .015, affected participants’ compli-ance. In the dialogue condition, participants were more likely to comply with arequest for a donation (50.8%) than in the monologue condition (22.5%). Moreparticipants donated in the situation in which the confederate talked about orasked about Afghanistan (42.5%) than when the topic was unrelated to the subse-quent request (30.8%).

Furthermore, participants donated money more often in the legitimizing-a-paltry-contribution condition (41.7%) than in the standard-request condition(31.7%). Loglinear analysis reveals an interaction between communication modeand type of request, χ2(1, N = 240) = 4.31, p < .038. The addition of the statement“Even a penny will help” to a standard request for funds increased compliancewith this request in the dialogue condition (58.3% vs. 43.3%), but not in themonologue condition (25.0% vs. 20.0%).

The ANOVA shows that the mean amount of money donated was higher inthe dialogue condition (0.77 Polish zlotys, or US$0.19) than in the monologuecondition (0.39 Polish zlotys, or US$0.10), F(1, 232) = 5.44, p < .0206. Theamount donated was slightly higher in the legitimization-of-a-paltry-contributioncondition (0.70 Polish zlotys, or US$0.17) than in the standard-request condition(0.43 Polish zlotys, or US$0.11), F(1, 232) = 3.01, p < .084. An interactionbetween communication mode and type of request was far from reaching statisti-cal significance (F < 1). Furthermore, among persons who decided to put moneyinto the donation box (i.e., excluding those who did not donate), participants whowere asked about or told about Afghan refugees gave less (1.27 Polish zlotys, orUS$0.32) than did participants who were asked about or who discussed theirpresent mood (2.21 Polish zlotys, or US$0.55), F(1, 79) = 7.41, p < .008.

Discussion

The results of the second experiment confirm the effectiveness of both tech-niques of social influence discussed in this article. The dialogue condition provedto be more effective than the monologue condition, and compliance occurred


Tabl

e 2

Perc

enta

ge o

f Per

sons

Com

plyi

ng W

ith E

xper

imen

ter’s

Req

uest

and

Mea

n D

onat

ions

in E

ach

Expe

rim

enta

l Con

ditio

n:

Expe

rim

ent 2

Moo

dIs

sue

Mon

olog

ue m

ode

Dia

logu

e m

ode

Mon

olog

ue m

ode

Dia

logu

e m

ode

% c

om-

plia

nce

M d

ona-

tion

% c

om-

plia

nce

M d

ona-

tion

% c

om-

plia

nce

M d

ona-

tion

% c

om-

plia

nce

M d

ona-

tion

Even

a p

enny

will

hel

p16

.70.

5453

.31.

0333

.30.

4163

.30.

83St

anda

rd re

ques

t16

.70.

3836

.70.

5023

.30.

2150

.00.

64

Not

e. In

all

expe

rimen

tal c

ondi

tions

, N =

30.

1 P

olis

h zl

oty

= ap

prox

imat

ely

US$

0.25

.


more often in the condition in which participants heard “Even a penny will help”than in the standard-request condition. Among those who offered a donation, nei-ther communication mode nor method of formulating the request (“Even a pennywill help” vs. standard procedure) influenced the amount of money donated.

In the dialogue condition, more money was collected than in the mono-logue condition; and compliance was higher in the legitimization-of-a-paltry-contribution condition than in the standard-request condition. The impact ofthe interaction context topic on the mean amount of donation appears to besignificant only in those analyses that excluded participants who did not makeany donation.

Participants who were engaged in a mood-related conversation donated morePolish zlotys than did those who were focused on the Afghans’ plight prior to therequest for their support. This outcome was unexpected and is quite difficult tointerpret. Perhaps the sudden change in topic (from an issue concerning partici-pants’ mood to the societal problem of helping Afghan refugees) took partici-pants by surprise, thus resulting in more money being donated.

Especially important from the perspective of the issue discussed in this articleis the statistically significant interaction between communication mode andmethod of formulating the request, as well as the lack of an interaction betweenboth of these factors and the topic of conversation preceding the request. Thenature of the interaction of the communication mode and the method of formulat-ing the request is that the dialogue intensified the effectiveness of the even-a-penny-will-help technique. The lack of a second-order interaction mentionedpreviously seems to demonstrate that the effectiveness of both social-influencetechniques on which we are focusing is not dependent on whether the conversa-tion preceding the request’s formulation causes the participant to fall into his orher own trap.

Both experiments presented so far centered around increasing compliancewith requests for money donations. What if we ask for something not measurableby any currency? Our next experiment aimed at testing if the effects discoveredin Experiment 2 would reappear in the situation where the request is not aboutmoney.

Experiment 3

The confederate approached participants in the market square of Wroclaw,another Polish city, and asked them to help distribute leaflets concerning thepotential organization of the World Expo exhibition in the city.5 A monologue or

5The organization of this prestigious exhibition is granted through a contest between the candi-date cities and considered a privilege and a great development opportunity for the winning city. Even-tually, Wroclaw lost out to Shanghai, where the World Expo is taking place in 2010.


dialogue preceded the request. In addition, in some cases, the request concludedwith the words “Every single distributed leaflet will count,” which is equivalentto “Even a penny will help.”


The experiment employed a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 (Participant Gender × Com-munication Mode: Monologue vs. Dialogue × Conversation Topic: Related vs.Not Related to the Request Issue × Request Format: Legitimization of a PaltryContribution vs. Standard Request) design. Research was conducted inSpring 2002, at a time when the city of Wroclaw was applying to be grantedthe privilege to organize the World’s Expo exhibition in 2010. There were 240adult Poles who participated in the experiment (120 female, 120 male). Each par-ticipant was assigned randomly to one of four experimental conditions and wasthen approached by a single confederate. Two male confederates took part in theexperiment. Each of them worked interchangeably in all eight conditions.

In the monologue condition not related to the leaflet-distribution topic, theconfederate said the following:

— Good morning! This year we are having a wonderful spring, soI am happy to be outside. We are trying to make our citizens awareof the advantages associated with the World’s Expo exhibitionevent organized by Wroclaw, if that privilege [is granted] to us.Would you like to support this action and help me by distributingthe leaflets?

In the monologue condition related to the request issue, a confederate said thefollowing:

— Good morning! I am sure you have heard that Wroclaw isapplying to be granted the privilege of organizing the World’sExpo exhibition event. We are trying to make our citizens aware ofthe advantages associated with the World’s Expo exhibition eventorganized by Wroclaw, if that privilege [is granted] to us. Wouldyou like to support this action and help me by distributing leaflets?

In the dialogue condition not related to the request issue, the interactionbetween the confederate and the participant went as follows:

— Good morning. What can you say about spring this year?

— […]


— Exactly! Let’s hope the weather will stay this beautiful on theweekend as well. Do you have plans to go somewhere?

— […]

— I have to stay in town myself. You see, we are trying to makeour citizens aware of the advantages associated with the World’sExpo exhibition event organized by Wroclaw, if that privilege [isgranted] to us. Would you like to support this action and help meby distributing leaflets?

In the dialogue condition related to the request issue, the conversation pro-ceeded as follows:

— Good morning. Have you heard that Wroclaw is applying to begranted the privilege of organizing the World’s Expo exhibitionevent?

— […]

— Do you think that if the privilege of organizing this exhibitionwill be granted, it would be advantageous for Wroclaw and itscitizens?

— […]

— We are trying to make our citizens aware of the advantagesassociated with the World’s Expo exhibition event organized byWroclaw, if that privilege [is granted] to us. Would you like to sup-port this action and help me by distributing leaflets?

In each of the conditions (monologue and dialogue) involving legitimizationof a paltry contribution, the confederate completed the request with the words“Every single distributed leaflet will count.” In each case, the experimenterextended to the participant a pile of exactly 50 leaflets. If the participant tooksome of the leaflets, upon the participant’s departure a confederate counted theremaining leaflets to determine the number of leaflets that were picked up by theparticipant.

Results

Preliminary analyses reveal that the dependent variables (frequency of help-ing with leaflet distribution and number of leaflets taken) were not affected bythe person making the request or the participant’s gender. Also, no impact was


found on participants’ compliance frequency resulting from specific answers pro-vided by participants in the dialogue condition (regarding the weather, plans forthe weekend, or attitudes toward the World’s Expo exhibition6 being organizedby the city of Wroclaw; χ2 <1 and F < 1 in each of the cases). Table 3 containsthe percentage of participants who complied with the request and the meannumber of leaflets being picked up in each experimental condition.

A loglinear analysis shows an impact of communication mode, χ2(1, N =240) = 17.20, p < .0001; and request type, χ2(1, N = 240) = 4.18, p < .041, onparticipants’ compliance. In the dialogue condition, participants were more likelyto comply with the request (50.0%) than in the monologue condition (24.2%).More participants complied in the legitimizing-of-a-paltry-contribution condition(43.3%) than in the standard-request condition (30.8%). The goodness-of-fitcoefficient based on the assumption that only the communication mode andrequest type are factors affecting the dependent variable proved to be the bestmodel to explain differences in the compliance rate shown in Table 3 (maximumlikelihood χ2 = 1.24, p = .999).

The ANOVA also shows that the mean amount of compliance was higher inthe dialogue condition (M number of leaflets taken = 8.62) than in the monologuecondition (M = 2.91), F(1, 232) = 26.35, p < .0001; and was higher in thelegitimization-of-a-paltry-contribution condition (M = 7.23) than in the standard-request condition (M = 4.31), F(1, 232) = 6.86, p < .009. The interaction betweenthe communication mode (monologue vs. dialogue) and the request format(paltry-contribution legitimization vs. standard request) was marginally signifi-cant, F(1, 232) = 3.23, p < .07. The series of comparisons using the Scheffé testshows that participants in the dialogue/legitimization-of-a-paltry-contributioncondition took more leaflets than did any other group (p < .05).

Discussion

The effectiveness of the social-influence techniques—dialogue involvementand legitimization of a paltry contribution—found in the two experimentsreported earlier was confirmed also in Experiment 3. In contrast to the secondexperiment, this time the topic of conversation preceding the request formulationhad no effect on participants’ compliance. It is rather intriguing to note that thepossible commitment evoked by involvement in a conversation related to thesubsequent request led to no consistency outcome in frequency or in level ofcompliance. This was the case in both techniques analyzed in this article. Italso was found that dialogue involvement did not increase the frequency of

6This last analysis exclusively concerns a comparison between research participants whodeclared unambiguously positive attitudes toward the World’s Expo exhibition and those whodeclared neutral ones or who answered “I don’t know.” Only 4 participants declared negative atti-tudes toward the idea of organization of the exhibition in Wroclaw.


Tabl

e 3

Perc

enta

ge o

f Per

sons

Com

plyi

ng W

ith E

xper

imen

ter’s

Req

uest

and

Mea

n N

umbe

r of L

eafle

ts T

aken

in E

ach

Expe

rim

enta

l C

ondi

tion:

Exp

erim

ent 3

Wea

ther

Issu

e

Mon

olog

ue m

ode

Dia

logu

e m

ode

Mon

olog

ue m

ode

Dia

logu

e m

ode

% c

om-

plia

nce

Mle

afle

ts%

com

-pl

ianc

eM

leaf

lets

% c

om-

plia

nce

Mle

afle

ts%

com

-pl

ianc

eM

leaf

lets

Legi

timiz

atio

n of

a pa

ltry

cont

ribut

ion

26.7

3.07

53.3

11.1

333

.33.

6760

.011

.03

Stan

dard

requ

est

16.7

2.27

40.0

5.00

20.0

2.63

46.7

7.33

Not

e. In

all

expe

rimen

tal c

ondi

tions

, N =

30.

1 P

olis

h zl

oty

= ap

prox

imat

ely

US$

0.25

.


compliance in the legitimization-of-a-paltry-contribution condition, but it had apositive influence on the number of leaflets picked up by a participant.

General Discussion

The way individuals communicate in order to influence others is one of thecentral issues of social psychology (Clark, 1985). In a set of three experimentsdescribed in this article, we examined the effectiveness of a technique based onusing a specific linguistic mode (incorporating or not incorporating the statement“Even a penny will help”) as well as a technique related to activating one of twoalternative modes of verbal interpersonal communications (dialogue, as opposedto monologue). In other words, the first technique is embedded in communicationcontent while the second is embedded in a form of communication.

The even-a-penny-will-help technique proved its efficiency in all three exper-iments. Because similar results have been obtained in many earlier studies (e.g.,Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976; Fraser & Hite, 1989; Reeves & Saucer, 1993), thiseffect can be considered a reliable and robust one. Analogous conclusions can beformulated with regard to the dialogue-involvement technique. All three experi-ments confirmed the effect of improved compliance in the dialogue involvementcondition, whether the topic of the dialogue was associated with the subsequentrequest or not.

Unfortunately, the results regarding the combined impact of the aforemen-tioned techniques seem to be less conclusive. In Experiment 1, no interaction wasfound between the communication mode and the request pattern. In Experiment2, even though frequency of compliance with the request was found to beaffected by each of the techniques, no impact was found on the amount ofdonated money. Surprisingly enough, in Experiment 3, the picture of the data wasreversed: There was no interaction when the dependent variable was frequency ofcompliance, while there was a marginally significant effect with regard to thenumber of leaflets taken. In summary, we obtained only moderate support for thethesis that dialogue involvement preceding a request intensifies the even-a-penny-will-help effect. Undoubtedly, to explain this inconsistency, further empir-ical research is necessary.

Other problems connected with incoherence in the results we obtained in ourexperiments concern the role of a topic in a dialogue. In Experiment 2, partici-pants who were involved in a dialogue related to Afghan refugees—thus themat-ically connected with the aim of collecting money—reached into their pockets oropened their purses more often than did participants with whom a confederateconversed on a neutral topic. At the same time, however, participants who weretalking about refugees gave particularly small sums of money. In Experiment 3,the content of conversation (connected vs. not connected with the nature of arequest) had no impact on either frequency or level of compliance.


At least two factors differentiate Experiment 2 and Experiment 3. One is thatin Experiment 2, participants were asked for monetary donations; while in Exper-iment 3, they were asked to help with the distribution of leaflets. Second, inExperiment 2, participants were asked to contribute to the cause of representa-tives of a foreign country, and thus to out-group members. Under the present dif-ficult economic conditions in Poland, it might have been a particularly potentfactor inhibiting aid. In Experiment 3, help was requested instead for inhabitantsof the same city and, in a sense, for oneself. Thus, it was an action guidedmore toward in-group members. Examining the possible impact of an in-group/out-group factor in determining compliance with a request would be an interest-ing focus for further empirical research.

The results of the three field experiments described in this article can make astrong argument for the usefulness of the two techniques under analysis: “Even apenny will help” and dialogue involvement. This expediency may have practicalimplications for representatives of various charity organizations.

Practical suggestions resulting from our research are as follows:

1. Prior to asking for a donation, engage the person in dialogue,rather than monologue.

2. Conclude your request with “Even a penny will help.”

3. To obtain the maximum compliance effect, engage the personin dialogue, and prior to asking for a donation, conclude yourrequest with the aforementioned statement or its equivalent (e.g.,“Every single leaflet distributed will count”).

4. Craft the content of the dialogue into one that is related to therequested issue if the request engages in-group feelings. Other-wise—if the request engages the well-being of an out-group at thecost of the requested person—engage the person in dialogue notrelated to the request.

These simple operations can visibly increase the sums received for socialcauses, only minimally increasing the effort of workers who are collecting funds.Of course, they should also be careful about the length of the dialogue. Prolongedconversations are time-consuming and may considerably limit the number ofpeople the requesters can reach in their total working time and thus confine thetotal success of the action.

The question that is crucial in the perspective of this article—whether theeffectiveness of the even-a-penny-will-help technique occurs exclusively in thecondition of dialogue involvement before posing the request—remains open. Wehave to make it clear that the results of our experiments did not provide sufficient


evidence to confirm such a thesis. What our studies do indicate, however, is thefact that the sequential application of both the techniques generates better com-pliance effect than using either of the techniques alone.

References

Brockner, J., Guzzi, B., Kane, J., Levine, E., & Shaplen, K. (1984). Organiza-tional fundraising: Further evidence on the effect of legitimizing small dona-tions. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 611-614.

Burger, J. M. (1996). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 238-277.

Burger, J. M., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., & Somervell, E. (2001). Theeffect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 27, 1578-1586.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence. Science and practice (4th ed.). New York, NY:HarperCollins.

Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-ball pro-cedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 36, 463-476.

Cialdini, R. B., & Schroeder, D. (1976). Increasing compliance by legitimizingpaltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 34, 599-604.

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby,B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: Thedoor-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,206-215.

Clark, H. H. (1985). Language use and language users. In G. Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 179-231). NewYork, NY: Random House.

Davis, P. B., & Knowles, E. S. (1999). A disrupt-then-reframe technique of socialinfluence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 192-199.

DeJong, W., & Oopik, A. J. (1992). Effect of legitimizing small contributions andlabeling potential donors as “helpers” on responses to a direct mail solicita-tion for charity. Psychological Reports, 71, 923-928.

Dillard, J. P., Anderson, J. W., & Knobloch, L. K. (2002). Interpersonal influ-ence. In M. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal commu-nication (3rd ed., pp. 425-474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dolinski, D., & Nawrat, R. (1998). “Fear-then-relief” procedure for producingcompliance: Beware when the danger is over. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 34, 27-50.


Dolinski, D., Nawrat, M., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a socialinfluence technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,1395-1406.

Doob, A. N., & McLaughlin, D. S. (1989). Ask and you shall be given: Requestsize and donations to a good cause. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19,1049-1056.

Fraser, C., & Hite, R. E. (1989). The effects of matching contribution offers andlegitimization of paltry contributions on compliance. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 19, 1010-1018.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4,195-202.

Howard, D. (1990). The influence of verbal responses to common greetings oncompliance behavior: The foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 20, 1185-1196.

Perrine, R. M., & Heather, S. (2000). Effects of picture and even-a-penny-will-help appeals on anonymous donation to charity. Psychological Reports, 86,551-559.

Reeves, R. A., & Saucer, P. R. (1993). A test of commitment in legitimizing pal-try contributions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 537-544.

Reingen, P. H. (1978). On inducing compliance with requests. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 5, 96-102.

Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spareseventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.

Weyant, J. M., & Smith, S. L. (1987). Getting more by asking for less: Theeffects of request size on donation of charity. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 17, 392-400.

Let's Dialogue About Penny: Effectiveness of Dialogue Involvement and Legitimizing Paltry...

Documents

Transcript of Let's Dialogue About Penny: Effectiveness of Dialogue Involvement and Legitimizing Paltry...