References
- Andrews, K. R., Carpenter, C. J., Shaw, A. S., & Boster, F. J. (2008). The legitimization of paltry favors effect: A review and meta-analysis. Communication Reports, 21, 59–69. doi:10.1080/08934210802305028
- Bolkan, S., & Rains, S. A. (2015). The legitimization of paltry contributions as a compliance-gaining technique: A meta-analysis testing three explanations. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215602308
- Cialdini, R. B., & Schroeder, D. A. (1976). Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 599–604. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.599
- Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
- Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 898–915. doi:10.1177/0013164498058006003
- Osgood, C. E., & Suci, G. J. (1955). Factor analysis of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 325–338. doi:10.1037/h0043965
- Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2007). Affective asynchrony and the measurement of the affective attitude component. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 300–329. doi:10.1080/02699930600911440
- Reingen, P. H. (1978). On inducing compliance with requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 96–102. doi:10.1086/jcr.1978.5.issue-2
- Russell, J., & Boster, F. J. (2016). Mediation of the legitimization of paltry favors technique: The impact of social comparison and the nature of the cause. Communication Reports, 29, 13–22. doi:10.1080/08934215.2015.1080850
- Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333–1352. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
- Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151