In this blog post I would like to talk about a short clip
from a tv show called Impractical Jokers. Here one of the jokers had a
challenge to get the petition that his friends proposed signed. As we can see,
he approaches the first passers by himself, with the quick initiative for
asking for their signatures straightaway. Surprisingly, it worked, but what
would the chances be if he would have tried it on more people?
Aune, and Basil (1994) tested the foot-in-the-mouth (FITM)
technique. They carried out an experiment where confederates from three different
conditions approached people on a university campus in order to ask them to
donate to a well-known charitable organization ‚x‘. The three conditions
differed in the way they asked passers-by: in the standard condition, the
confederate just said hi and ask to donate. In feeling-state/consistency condition,
the confederate asked how is the person feeling first, and after acknowleding
that, carried on to ask about the donation. In relational
obligations/consistency approach, the confederate asked the person whether he
was a student there, and afterwards let the person know that the confederate
was (also) a student there before asking for the donation. The results (seen in
Table 1) revealed a strong influence by the FITM technique. Increased
perceptions of relationship between the confederates and passers-by made them
comply significantly more.
If the joker from the tv show would have contributed a
couple of seconds to establish some sort of personal information exchange with
the people, the chances of him getting the petition signed, however ridiculous the reason for it is, would have been higher.
Reference:
Aune, R. K. & Basil, M. D. (1994). A relational
obligations explanation for the foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 24, 546-556.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.