Promoting Charitable Behaviour with Compliance Techniques

Abstract

Pour comparer I'impact de trois techniques d'acquiescement sur I'incitation au comportement charitable, on a demand6 A 409 personnes de verscr $2 a l ' h e r i c a n Cancer Society. Cette requtte fut immtdiatement prksentte dans trois groupes contrde et p r t d d t e dans neuf groupes expenmentau d'une demande prtliminaire correspondant A une proctdure d'aquiescement B requite multiple. On a d'abord demand6 aux sujets soumis A la technique "pied dans la porte" de ripondre 3 un questionnaire composk de 10, 35 ou 60 items. On sollicitait d'abord $10, 25 ou 50 de la part de ceux confrontis a la situation "porte dans la figure"; et $0,50, 1 ou 1.50 de la part des sujets "ras des pgquerettes". Les rtsultats montrent que les mtthodes $10 et 25 "porte dans la figure" furent les plus rentables. Les sujets contrde et "ras des piquerettes" donnhent A peu prbs la mtme chose et les conditions "pied dans la porte" furent les moins productives. On discute, A partir de ces dicouvertes, de la valeur pratique et des inconvtnients virtuels de I'application des techniques d'acquiescement requtte multiple pour stimuler le comportement charitable.To compare the relative impact of three social compliance techniques in promoting charitable behaviour 409 individuals were asked to contribute $2 to the American Cancer Society. This target request was presented alone in three control groups and preceded by an initial request framed according to a multiple-request compliance procedure in nine experimental groups. Subjects exposed to the fwt-in-the-door technique were first asked to complete either a lo-, 3 5 , or 60-item questionnaire. Those in the door-in-the-face condition were first asked to donate either $10, $25 or $50. Low-ball subjects Requests for reprints should be Sent to Richard Katzev, door-in-face procedures produced more money than any other condition. Low-ball and control subjects contributed about equivalent amounts of money, and the foot-in-the-door conditions were the least successful on each measure of charitable khaviour. These fidings were discussed in terms of both the practical value and potential disadvantages of applying multiple request social compliance techniques to promote charitable behaviour.

Application of compliance techniques to direct-mail requests for charitable donations

“…This ploy led to more contributions and contributions for higher amounts of money than were obtained in comparison conditions. Wang et al (1989) obtained similar results in a door-to-door campaign for the American Cancer Society. Whereas foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, and low-ball are general compliance techniques that researchers have sometimes adapted to induce charitable donations, there is one technique that is specifically designed to induce such contributions.…”

“…Goldman (1985) found that when a telephone interviewer first asked people to make 150 calls on behalf of "Friends of the Zoo" and was refused, people were then more likely to comply with a request to stuff and address 75 envelopes than were people who were not asked the initial large request. In separate campaigns for an art museum (Brownstein & Katzev, 1985) and the American Cancer Society (Wang, et al, 1989) the door-in-the-face technique was more effective in inducing donations than was the foot-in-the-door technique. Cantril (1991) successfully used the door-in-the-face technique to gain verbal compliance with requests to solicit organ donors or to work with the elderly.…”

“…However, what might seem to be a large request in a face-toface situation (e.g., a $5 donation) may seem relatively small in a direct-mail campaign. Even staying within the verbal mode, Wang et al (1989) demonstrated the importance of calibrating the size of requests when applying compliance techniques, such as door-in-the-face and low-ball, to fundraising. It should also be kept in mind that some applications of compliance techniques in the verbal mode failed to increase the effectiveness of donation requests.…”

“…Brownstein and Katzev (1985) found that asking patrons of an art museum to sign a petition supporting the institution was no more effective in inducing subsequent $1 donations to the museum than was simply asking for donations from the outset. In a door-to-door campaign for the American Cancer Society, Wang, Brownstein, and Katzev (1989) found that, compared to people who were simply asked to make a donation, people who were first asked to fill out a questionnaire about cancer were actually less likely to make contributions.…”

Literature Review: Philanthropic Fundraising

“…With other techniques (foot-in-the-door, asking for a signature on a petition, and door-in-the-face, asking for a five-dollar contribution initially), solicitors were not able to raise as much from the eightynine subjects in the study. Wang, Brownstein, and Katzev (1989) compared the relative impact of three social compliance techniques in promoting charitable behavior. Those asking prospects to donate either $10, $25, or $50 up front (door-in-the-face) produced more money than either having the prospect answer a questionnaire or asking for an amount of $1.50 or less.…”