The Legitimization of Paltry Favors Effect: A Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

A meta-analysis was conducted on the legitimization of paltry favors (LPF) effect (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976). A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, with a combined sample of 2,730 subjects. Excluding studies in which the LPF request was delivered via mail and those studies that accepted pledges as the dependent variable resulted in a homogeneous set of effect sizes (r = .18, OR = 2.41). While the data provide clues as to possible mediating mechanisms, the cause of the effect is still not clear. Directions for future research are suggested.

Keywords:

• Compliance-Gaining
• Even a Penny Will Help
• Legitimization of Paltry Favors

Notes

¹Presentation mode: FTF = face to face, M = mailed.

²Dependent variable: I = immediate, P = pledge.

³Sex of requestor: M = male, F = female, B = both male and female, I = impersonal request.

⁴Place request made: H = subject's home, P = public.

⁵Whether confederate was blind to condition.

⁶LPF Message: 1 = variant of “even a penny will help,” 2 = “contributions from a penny on up,” 3 = included pregiving, 4 = included dialogue induction, 5 = included normative information.

⁷Control message: 1 = simple direct request, 2 = included normative information, 3 = included pregiving, 4 = included dialogue induction.

Clearly, there are alternative methods of performing meta-analysis (e.g., Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Rosenthal, 1991). Hunter's variance-centered method has been used extensively and effectively in communication research (e.g., Allen et al., 2007; Boster & Mongeau, 1984; Dillard et al., 1984; Hullett, 2005). Moreover, it has been our observation that alternative methods rarely yield estimates that differ substantially when the methods are executed competently (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1999). In any event, Tables 1 and 2 present the raw data that allow our conclusions to be examined with alternative methods.

Another dependent variable of interest is the difference in mean donation in the experimental and control groups. In some studies (e.g., DeJong & Oopik, 1992; Dolinski et al., 2005; Fraser & Hite, 1989), this value was reported for all experimental and control group subjects. In other studies (e.g., Fraser et al., 1988; Reeves & Saucer, 1993; Takada & Levine, 2007), this value was reported only for those who donated. This fact made the calculation of the within cell variances impossible, and thus, made the calculation of an effect size impossible for this dependent measure.