TY - JOUR
AU - Miller, Richard L.
AB - the Nature the of Facilitating Comparison: Compliance by Manipulating Relative Cost vs. Concession Reciprocal Richard L. Miller University Georgetown of for the The this was to examine two success of possible explanations purpose study in which an extreme which is sure to be is immediate- strategy request rejected compliance. desired from the followed a smaller which is the by request objective very beginning. ly In a series of the then small et. experiments using large request paragigm, Cialdini , out such obvious as &dquo;not to no twice&dquo; or al. (1973) ruled possible explanations wanting say the easier of two alternatives and that occurs because argued compliance choosing possible concessions rule which the behavior of the Evi- of a reciprocal regulates participants. denoe from the (Wi2ke and 1970) and literature (Chertkoff Lanzetta, bargaining reciprocity and and 1972) the idea that the offer of a Conley, 1967; Benton, Kelley Liebling, supports small favor or concession one increases the likelihood that the other by part- participant will return the favor or make a oonoession. icipant reciprocal for such The second re- There another is, however, plausible explanation compliance. in Cialdini’s demanded less time and effort from the Now cost quest experiments subject. 
TI - Facilitating Compliance by Manipulating the Nature of the Comparison: Relative Cost vs. Reciprocal Concession
JF - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DO - 10.1177/014616727400100155
DA - 1974-02-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/facilitating-compliance-by-manipulating-the-nature-of-the-comparison-M7o8B0xBQS
SP - 160
EP - 162
VL - 1
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -