Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost.

Abstract

The low-ball technique, a tactic often used by automobile sales dealers to produce compliance from customers, was examined in a set of three experiments. In all three studies, a requester who induced subjects to make an initial decision to perform a target behavior and who then made performance of the behavior more costly obtained greater final compliance than a requester who informed subjects of the full costs of the target behavior from the outset. The low-ball phenomenon-that an active preliminary decision to take an action tends to persevere even after the costs of performing the action have been increased-was found to be reliable (Experiment 1), different from the foot-in-the-door effect (Experiment 2), and effective only when the preliminary decision was made with a high degree of choice (Experiment 3). In competition with three other conceptual explanations, a formulation based on the concept of commitment was seen to best account for the results. An ecologically derived strategy for the identification and investigation of research questions was used and discussed.

Preference elicitation under oath

“…Other studies have found that the low-ball strategy is more effective than the foot-in-the-door method; the explanation being that the preliminary request is the target behavior. Cialdini, Bassett, Miller, and Miller (1978) assert that the results of their studies indicate that "the low-ball phenomenon is reliable, robust, and mediated by a commitment to an initial, uncoerced decision to perform a behavior".…”

“…Although both the foot-in-the-door and the low-ball techniques rely on the person performing an initial request, the difference between the two is that in low-balling the preliminary request is the target behavior itself. In the first low-ball experiment, Cialdini, Bassett, Miller, and Miller (1978) asked students to participate in an experiment taking place at the University at an unsocial time, i.e. 7:00AM.…”

“…The main reason behind such a strong influence of the freedom to choose lies in the way commitment "frames" people: if the commitment device is mandatory, it is perceived as complied with for external reasons by the subjects, and fails to change 6 Low-balling or "throwing a low-ball" was already known in some sales organizations, in particular among new-car dealers. It consisted of selling a car at a good price and to remove the price advantage once the customer agreed, by selling for instance a very expensive option (Cialdini, Bassett, Miller, and Miller, 1978).…”

Putting the Mr. Big technique back on trial: a re-examination of probative value and abuse of process through a scientific lens

“…A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the low-ball technique in gaining compliance (e.g., Burger & Petty, 1981;Cialdini, et al, 1978;Guéguen, Pascual, & Dagot, 2002). It is clear that the low-ball technique is used in Mr. Big operations.…”

“…The low-ball technique is when someone revokes an appealing offer once it has been accepted, and replaces the appealing offer with a less desirable one (Burger & Cornelius, 2003;Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, & Miller, 1978;Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004;Cialdini & Trost, 1998). A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the low-ball technique in gaining compliance (e.g., Burger & Petty, 1981;Cialdini, et al, 1978;Guéguen, Pascual, & Dagot, 2002).…”