A meta-analysis of the pique technique of compliance

Figures & data

Table 1. Effect sizes and moderators associated with the compliance rate.

Study	Pique		Control		r	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
	%	Complaint subjects/n	%	Complaint subjects/n
Burger et al. (2007, Study 1, combined pique conditions)	41.7	85/204	18.8	22/117	.233	2	2	1	2	2	4	1	1
Burger et al. (2007, Study 2, control 25, combined pique conditions)	42.1	64/152	15.0	12/80	.275	2	2	1	2	2	4	1	1
Feeley et al. (2014, Study 1)	15.4	4/26	21.4	6/28	−.078	4	2	1	2	2	2	1	1
Feeley et al. (2014, Study 2)	21.4	6/28	25.0	7/28	−.042	4	2	1	2	2	2	1	1
Feeley et al. (2014, Study 3)	21.4	9/42	16.3	7/43	.066	4	2	1	2	2	3	1	1
Guéguen, Meineri, Pascual, and Girandola (2015)	45.0	18/40	15.0	6/40	.327	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	2
Guéguen, Meineri, Pascual, and Girandola (2015, reframe)	57.5	23/40	20.0	8/40	.385	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	2
Guéguen, Meineri, Pascual, Girandola, and Silone (2015)	60.0	90/150	42.0	63/150	.180	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 1)	72.5	29/40	12.5	5/40	.607	3	2	1	2	2	2	1	2
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 2, justification)	74.0	37/50	30.0	15/50	.440	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	2
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 2, no justification)	44.0	22/50	14.0	7/50	.331	2	2	1	2	2	1	1	2
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 3, final sum mention)	88.0	44/50	40.0	20/50	.500	3	1	1	2	2	2	1	2
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 3, no final sum mention)	58.0	29/50	26.0	13/50	.324	3	1	1	2	2	2	1	2
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 1, high amount)	30.6	22/72	15.3	11/72	.182	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	1
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 1, low amount)	42.5	31/73	30.6	22/72	.124	1	2	1	2	2	2	1	1
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 2, high amount)	75.0	30/40	42.5	17/40	.330	2	2	1	1	1	4	2	1
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 2, low amount)	74.4	29/39	65.0	26/40	.102	1	2	1	1	1	4	2	1

Notes: a – Request amount in pique technique condition (1 = 17 cents, 2 = 37 cents or seconds, 3 = 42 cents, 4 = 3.17 dollars); b – Reason for request (1 = Yes, 2 = No); c – Target request (1 = Money, 2 = Time); d – Dependent variable (1 = Intention to donate money or time, 2 = Actual donation of money or time); e – Age of subject (1 = Students, 2 = Adults); f – Sex of requester (1 = Male only, 2 = Female only, 3 = Both male and female, 4 = NA); g – Type of study (1 = Field study, 2 = Laboratory study); h – Country (1 = United States, 2 = France).

Figure 1. Funnel plot of standard error by Fisher’s Z.

Table 2. Moderator analyses for the compliance rate.

Moderator [QBetween]	k	r	95% CI	z	p	QWithin
Overall	17	.265	[.19, .34]	6.54	.000	52.70^***
Request amount in pique technique condition [Q (3) = 23.40, p = .000]
17 cents	2	.116	[-.02, .25]	1.73	.084	0.03
37 cents or seconds	9	.274	[.22, .33]	8.91	.000	10.41
42 cents	3	.482	[.31, .62]	4.99	.000	5.97
3.17 dollars	3	−.004	[-.15, .14]	−0.06	.953	0.76
Reason for request [Q (1) = 8.44, p = .004]
Yes	3	.424	[.32, .52]	7.26	.000	2.26
No	14	.229	[.15, .31]	5.46	.000	38.26^***
Target request [Q (1) = 1.72, p = .189]
Money	16	.271	[.19, .35]	6.20	.000	50.44^***
Time	1	.180	[.07, .29]	3.14	.002	0.00
Dependent variable [Q (1) = 0.18, p = .674]
Intention to donate money or time	2	.219	[-.01, .43]	1.85	.064	2.21
Actual donation of money or time	15	.270	[.19, .35]	6.16	.000	50.23^***
Age of subject [Q (1) = 0.18, p = .674]
Students	2	.219	[-.01, .43]	1.85	.064	2.21
Adults	15	.270	[.19, .35]	6.16	.000	50.23^***
Sex of requester [Q (3) = 7.42, p = .060]
Male only	2	.387	[.26, .50]	5.68	.000	0.80
Female only	10	.268	[.14, .39]	4.07	.000	41.89^***
Both male and female	1	.066	[-.15, .28]	0.60	.550	0.00
NA	4	.244	[.17, .31]	6.59	.000	2.61
Type of study [Q (1) = 0.18, p = .674]
Field study	15	.270	[.19, .35]	6.16	.000	50.23^***
Laboratory study	2	.219	[-.01, .43]	1.85	.064	2.21
Country [Q (1) = 10.30, p = .001]
United States	9	.165	[.09, .24]	4.15	.000	13.41
France	8	.386	[.28, .49]	6.44	.000	23.50^**

^** p < .01

^*** p < .001.

Table 3. Mean amount of donation per donor and total amount of donation.

Study	Mean donation				Total donation
	Pique		Control		Pique	Control
	Mean	Complaint subjects/n	Mean	Complaint subjects/n	Total	Total
Burger et al. (2007, Study 1, combined pique conditions)	$0.45	85/204	$0.37	22/117	$37.18	$8.19
Burger et al. (2007, Study 2, control 25, combined pique conditions)	$0.48	64/152	$0.27	12/80	$30.51	$3.20
Feeley et al. (2014, Study 1)	$4.00	4/26	$6.17	6/28	$16.0	$37.0
Feeley et al. (2014, Study 2)	$4.33	6/28	$3.14	7/28	$26.0	$22.0
Feeley et al. (2014, Study 3)	$3.72	9/42	$3.43	7/43	$33.5	$24.0
Guéguen, Meineri, Pascual, and Girandola (2015)	€0.16	18/40	€0.13	6/40	€2.88	€0.78
Guéguen, Meineri, Pascual, and Girandola (2015, reframe)	€0.37	23/40	€0.19	8/40	€8.51	€1.52
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 1)	€0.46	29/40	€0.36	5/40	€13.34	€1.80
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 2, justification)	€0.61	37/50	€0.39	15/50	€22.57	€5.85
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 2, no justification)	€0.49	22/50	€0.37	7/50	€10.78	€2.59
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 3, final sum mention)	€0.47	44/50	€0.42	20/50	€20.68	€8.40
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 3, no final sum mention)	€0.47	29/50	€0.38	13/50	€13.63	€4.94
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 1, high amount)	$0.41	22/72	$0.63	11/72	$9.02	$6.93
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 1, low amount)	$0.32	31/73	$0.41	22/72	$9.92	$9.02
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 2, high amount)	$0.30	30/40	$0.35	17/40	$9.00	$5.95
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 2, low amount)	$0.41	29/39	$0.31	26/40	$11.89	$8.06
Overall	1.09	482/996	1.08	204/840	17.21	9.39

Table 4. Percentage of participants asking about the request.

Study	Inquiry about request
	Pique		Control
	%	Inquiring subjects/n	%	Inquiring subjects/n
Burger et al. (2007, Study 1, combined pique conditions)	29.9	61/204	0.0	0/117
Burger et al. (2007, Study 2, control 25, combined pique conditions)	37.5	57/152	0.0	0/80
Feeley et al. (2014, Study 2)	18.0	5/28	7.0	2/28
Guéguen, Meineri, Pascual, Girandola, and Silone (2015)	8.0	12/150	1.3	2/150
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 1)	0.0	0/40	0.0	0/40
Guéguen and Lamy (2016, Study 2, no justification)	0.0	0/50	0.0	0/50
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 1, high amount)	13.9	10/72	0.0	0/72
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 1, low amount)	8.2	6/73	1.4	1/72
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 2, high amount)	57.5	23/40	20.0	8/40
Santos et al. (1994, Experiment 2, low amount)	48.7	19/39	32.5	13/40
Overall	22.6	188/820	6.1	24/661

Burger, J. M., Hornisher, J., Martin, V. E., Newman, G., & Pringle, S. (2007). The pique technique: Overcoming mindlessness or shifting heuristics? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2086–2096.10.1111/jasp.2007.37.issue-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Feeley, T. H., Dietrich, S., & Musone, J. (2014). Replicating the pique technique of compliance-gaining. Unpublished manuscript. Buffalo: Department of Communication, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.

 Google Scholar

*Guéguen, N., Meineri, S., Pascual, A., & Girandola, F. (2015). The pique then reframe technique: Replication and extention of the pique technique. Communication Research Reports, 32, 143–148.10.1080/08824096.2015.1016151

 Google Scholar

*Guéguen, N., Meineri, S., Pascual, A., Girandola, F., & Silone, F. (2015). Hey buddy, can you give me 37s of your time? Extention of the pique technique to a non-monetary solicitation and test of justification for compliance. Current Psychology, 35, 583–586.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Guéguen, N., & Lamy, L. (2016). The pique technique: A goal-oriented effect? Communication Reports, 29, 115–125.10.1080/08934215.2015.1050120

 Google Scholar

*Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755–764.10.1111/jasp.1994.24.issue-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar