The low-ball compliance procedure: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Table 1 Low-ball and control condition compliance percentages.

	Low-Ball		Control
Cialdini et al. (1978)—Experiment 1	18/34	52.9%	7/29	24.1%
Cialdini et al. (1978)—Experiment 2	6/10	60.0%	2/10	20.0%
Cialdini et al. (1978)—Experiment 3	29/48	60.4%	15/48	31.3%
Motes and Woodside (1979)^a	1/20	5.0%	4/20	20.0%
Motes and Woodside (1979)	2/20	10.0%	2/20	10.0%
Burger and Petty (1981)—Experiment 1	11/20	55.0%	4/20	20.0%
Burger and Petty (1981)—Experiment 2	13/20	65.0%	7/20	35.0%
Burger and Petty (1981)—Experiment 3	4/15	26.7%	0/15	0.0%
Brownstein and Katzev (1985)	20/21	95.2%	20/25	80.0%
Joule (1987)^b	48/64	75.0%	1/24	4.2%
Katzev and Brownstein (1988)^a	16/30	53.3%	11/30	36.7%
Katzev and Brownstein (1988)	18/30	60.0%	22/30	73.3%
Wang et al. (1989)^b	26/111	23.4%	10/38	26.3%
Hornik, Zaig, and Shadmon (1991)	94/134	70.1%	64/137	46.7%
Gueguen et al. (2002)	12/40	30.0%	5/40	12.5%
Burger and Cornelius (2003)—Experiment 2	23/58	39.7%	14/89	15.7%
Burger and Cornelius (2003)—Experiment 3	38/49	77.6%	21/50	42.0%
Gueguen and Pascual (2014)—Experiment 1	40/50	80.0%	19/50	38.0%
Gueguen and Pascual (2014)—Experiment 2^b	72/160	45.0%	44/160	27.5%
Total	491/914	53.7%	272/835	32.6%

a Treated as two separate experiments.

b Combined more than one low-ball condition into one condition.

Table 2 Effect of cost increase on compliance.

	Low-Ball		Control
Large increase in cost
Motes and Woodside (1979)^a	1/20	5.0%	4/20	20.0%
Motes and Woodside (1979)	2/20	10.0%	2/20	10.0%
Katzev and Brownstein (1988)^a	16/30	53.3%	11/30	36.7%
Katzev and Brownstein (1988)	18/30	60.0%	22/30	73.3%
Wang et al. (1989)^b	11/74	14.9%	10/38	26.3%
Total	48/174	27.6%	49/138	35.5%
Small increase in cost
Brownstein and Katzev (1985)	20/21	95.2%	20/25	80.0%
Wang et al. (1989)	15/37	40.5%	10/38	26.3%
Total	35/58	60.3%	30/63	47.6%

a Treated as two separate experiments.

b Combined more than one low-ball condition into one condition.

*Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463–476. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.463.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Motes, W. H., & Woodside, A. G. (1979). Influence of low-balling on buyers' compliance. Journal of Psychology, 101, 219–221. doi:10.1080/00223980.1979.9915074.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Burger, J. M., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The low-ball compliance technique: Task or person commitment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 492–500. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.492.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brownstein, R. J.Katzev, R. D. (1985). The relative effectiveness of three compliance techniques in eliciting donations to a cultural organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 564–574. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985,tb00920.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Joule, R. V. (1987). Tabacco deprivation: The foot-in-the-door technique versus the low-ball technique. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 361–365. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420170311.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Katzev, R., & Brownstein, R. (1988). The influence of enlightenment on compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 335–347. doi:10.1080/00224545.1989.9712050.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wang, T., Brownstein, R., & Katzev, R. (1989). Promoting charitable behaviour with compliance techniques. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 165–183. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1989.tb1207.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hornik, J., Zaig, T., & Shadmon, D. (1991). Reducing refusals in telephone surveys on sensitive topics. Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 49–56.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Gueguen, N., Pascual, A., & Dagot, L. (2002). Low-ball and compliance to a request: An application in a field setting. Psychological Reports, 91, 81–84. doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.81.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

*Burger, J. M., & Cornelius, T. (2003). Raising the price of agreement: Public commitment and the low-ball compliance procedure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 923–934. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01931.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Gueguen, N., & Pascual, A. (2014). Low-ball and compliance: Commitment even if the request is a deviant one. Social Influence, 9, 162–171. doi:10.1080/15534510.2013.798243.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar