Ask in person: You're less persuasive than you think over email

Abstract

Research has found people underestimate the likelihood strangers will comply with their direct requests (Bohns, 2016; Flynn & Lake, 2008). Here we argue this "underestimation-of-compliance effect" may be limited to requests made face-to-face. We find when making direct requests over email, requesters instead overestimate compliance. In two studies, participants asked strangers to comply with requests either face-to-face or over email. Before making these requests, requesters estimated the number of people they expected to say "yes". While requesters underestimated compliance in face-to-face contexts, replicating previous research, they overestimated compliance in email contexts. Analyses of several theorized mechanisms for this finding suggest that requesters, anchored on their own perspectives, fail to appreciate the suspicion, and resulting lack of empathy, with which targets view email requests from strangers. Given the prevalence of email and text-based communication, this is an extremely important moderator of the underestimation-of-compliance effect.

Evaluating quality of care for patients with rotator cuff disorders

“…This occurred because more Calgary patients received completion requests in person during subsequent follow-up visits; whereas more Edmonton patients were followed-up over email. This finding is consistent with previous studies that found face-to-face requests to be more successful than email requests [ 48 ]. A future sensitivity analysis could be performed to further examine the impact of this difference; however, bias resulting from non-response in surveys is difficult to assess since information about non-responders is rarely available.…”

A helping hand is hard at work: Help-seekers’ underestimation of helpers’ effort

“…The finding that help-seekers underestimate help effort provides an important complement to extant findings that help-seekers underestimate the likelihood that others will comply with their requests for help (Bohns, 2016;Bohns et al, 2011;Bohns et al, 2016;Flynn & Lake (Bohns), 2008;Newark et al, 2014;Roghanizad & Bohns, 2017). Estimations of the likelihood of compliance only tell half the story.…”

“…However, research on help-seeking has focused solely on help-seekers' estimations of the likelihood of receiving help, should they request it (Bohns et al, 2011;Bohns et. al., 2016;Flynn & Lake (Bohns), 2008;Newark et al, 2014;Roghanizad & Bohns, 2017). Help-seekers' estimations of the value of that help, should they receive it, have largely been ignored.…”

“…Yet despite this variability, questions about the quality of assistance one expects to receive should someone agree to help have drawn little research attention, even from studies aimed at understanding helpseekers' estimates of help outcomes. Rather than examine help-seekers' expectations of help quality, past research has examined help-seekers' expectations of whether help will be given (Bohns, 2016;Bohns et al, 2011;Bohns, Newark, & Xu, 2016;Flynn & Lake (Bohns), 2008;Newark, Flynn, & Bohns, 2014;Roghanizad & Bohns, 2017). But just as whether one anticipates rejection or acceptance influences one's decision to ask for help, so too does one's assessment of the quality of help at stake.…”

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

“…Written communications have been shown consistently to be less effective or persuasive than face-to-face meetings (Roghanizad and Bohns 2017), and in many cases, telephone conversations may be more productive than email communication. Moreover, do not assume that partners have reliable internet access or that an unanswered email is a lack of interest.…”