# The Four Walls technique applied to citizen participation: An exploration of consistency effects

Kévin Nadarajah, Stéphanie Bordel, Alain Somat

► To cite this version:

Kévin Nadarajah, Stéphanie Bordel, Alain Somat. The Four Walls technique applied to citizen participation: An exploration of consistency effects. European Review of Applied Psychology / Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 2025, 75 (3), pp.101025. 10.1016/j.erap.2024.101025. hal-04965478

HAL Id: hal-04965478

https://hal.science/hal-04965478v1

Submitted on 25 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Original article

# The Four Walls technique applied to citizen participation: An exploration of consistency effects

## La technique des Quatre Murs appliquée à la participation citoyenne : une exploration des effets de consistance

Kévin Nadarajah<sup>a, b, *</sup>, Stéphanie Bordel<sup>b</sup>, Alain Somat<sup>a</sup>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## INFO ARTICLE

Historique de l'article :
Reçu le 5 septembre 2023
Reçu sous la forme révisée
le 15 avril 2024
Accepté le 21 avril 2024

Keywords :
Four Walls technique
Compliance without pressure
Consistency
Citizen participation
Commitment

Mots clés :
Technique des quatre murs
Soumission sans pression
Consistance
Participation des citoyens
Engagement

## ABSTRACT

**Introduction.** – Citizens turn away from public debates because they are skeptical about their real impact. At the same time, although they do not know how to go about it, they are expressing a strong demand for participation. Compliance without pressure, and in particular Four Walls or Repeated Acquiescence (Cialdini and Sagarin, 2005), seem to be relevant tools if we want people to attend and then participate in debates.

**Objectives.** – The aims of this article were: (1) to draw on this technique to develop an engagement strategy designed to bring people into the debate, and (2) to explore the theoretical explanations in terms of consistency used in this paradigm.

**Method.** – Three studies were conducted (study 1, n = 60, study 2, n = 120, study 3, n = 102). Participants were invited to take part in an exchange meeting on social issues. The technique was systematically manipulated: cognitive consistency with the request vs. self-consistency (studies 1, 2 and 3) vs. unrelated to the request (study 2).

**Results.** – The results of studies 1 and 2 show that the Four Walls technique is effective only when it is consistent with the request. The results of study 3 show that perceptions of exchange meetings are structured according to the type of consistency mobilized and the level of behavioral intention.

**Conclusion.** – The technique appears to be a promising solution for fostering citizen mobilization within public debates. The adoption of this technique by concertation professionals could play an essential role in revitalising spaces for democratic expression in our societies. Nevertheless, the principle of consistency mobilized in this paradigm should be used with caution, at the risk of causing deleterious effects on the ability of individuals to truly exchange and listen to each other in these spaces.

© 2024 Les Auteurs. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. Cet article est publié en Open Access sous licence

CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## RÉSUMÉ

**Introduction.** – Les citoyens se détournent des débats publics en raison d'un scepticisme quant à leurs réelles retombées. Dans le même temps, bien qu'ils ne sachent pas comment s'y prendre, ils expriment une forte demande de participation. Les procédures de soumission sans pression en particulier la technique des Quatre Murs ou Acquiescement répété (Cialdini et Sagarin, 2005) semblent être des outils pertinents si l'on veut que les gens se rendent puis participent aux débats.

**Objectifs.** – Cet article avait pour objectifs : (1) de s'appuyer sur cette technique pour élaborer une stratégie d'engagement destinée à faire venir les gens au débat public et (2) d'explorer les explications théoriques en termes de consistance mobilisées dans ce paradigme.

**Méthode.** – Trois études ont été menées (étude 1, n = 60, étude 2, n = 120, étude 3, n = 102). Les participants étaient amenés à participer à une réunion d'échanges portant sur divers sujets de société. La technique était systématiquement manipulée : consistance cognitive avec la requête vs consistance de soi (étude 1, 2 et 3) vs non liée à la requête (étude 2).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Laboratoire de Psychologie : Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C), Université de Rennes, 35000 Rennes, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Équipe Recherche Psychologie Appliquée (PsyCAP), Centre d'Études et d'Expertise sur les Risques, l'Environnement, la Mobilité et l'Aménagement (Cerema), 22000 Saint-Brieuc, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: Rennes 2 University, Psychology, place Recteur-Henri-le-Moal, 35000 Rennes, France.
Adresses e-mail : kevin.nadarajah@cerema.fr (K. Nadarajah), stephanie.bordel@cerema.fr (S. Bordel), alain.somat@univ-rennes2.fr (A. Somat).</footnote>
**Résultats.** – Les résultats des études 1 et 2 montrent que la technique des Quatre Murs est efficace uniquement lorsque celle-ci est consistante avec la requête. Les résultats de l'étude 3 montrent que les perceptions des réunions d'échanges sont structurées en fonction du type de consistance mobilisé et le niveau d'intention comportementale.

**Conclusion.** – La technique apparaît comme une solution prometteuse pour favoriser la mobilisation citoyenne au sein des débats publics. L'adoption de cette technique par les professionnels de la concertation pourrait jouer un rôle essentiel dans la revitalisation des espaces d'expression démocratique dans nos sociétés. Néanmoins, le principe de consistance mobilisé dans ce paradigme est à utiliser avec précautions, au risque de provoquer des effets délétères sur la capacité des individus à véritablement échanger et s'écouter dans ces espaces.

© 2024 Les Auteurs. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This article is published Open Access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

# 1. Introduction

Citizens seem uncertain of their ability to influence democratic debates (Papadopoulos, 2013). They also sometimes seem skeptical about the real impact of participatory processes (Jacquet, 2017a). Indeed, these debates are often perceived as a means of simply providing information to citizens (Shindler & Neburka, 1997) and legitimising projects and decisions that have already been taken (Aitken, 2010). Over the past few years, these problems have tended to become more acute, since citizens seem to have less and less confidence in institutions and representative democracy in Europe (Cheurfa & Chanvril, 2019; SciencesPo-CEVIPOF, 2023), which could explain why they are less and less involved in decision-making at all levels (Dalton & Welzel, 2014). As observed in the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, only 4% of those invited agreed to take part in the debates (Fournier et al., 2011). In 2019, the European Court of Auditors came to a similar conclusion in a special report on citizen participation in 26 public consultations (European Court of Auditors, 2019). Although participation is considered significant, the report reveals that it represents only a tiny fraction of all European voters, at just 1.16%. In France, a report on a national survey carried out in 2014 by the Commission Nationale du Débat Public (2014) reveals an ambivalent position among the people questioned. Indeed, while they say they want to get involved in public debates, they do not really know how. Thus, for 72% of those questioned, these debates are useless – since the decision is often perceived as having been taken beforehand – and 55% think that public debates are too technical or too difficult to understand. Finally, 53% of respondents consider that public debates are nothing more than a place for pressure groups, and 45% think that public debates are too discreet and that we do not hear enough about them. The report notes that citizens are skeptical, but at the same time express a strong demand for participation: they expect to be consulted more often, and for their opinions to be taken into account. The survey results also show that for citizens to take part in public debates, they need to be certain that they are not being instrumentalized (51%). This ambivalence could be explained by citizens distancing themselves from public debate, and could be linked to a form of lucidity (i.e., decision-making is confiscated by decision-makers) and disenchantment (i.e., in the end, democracy is impossible – Barbier, 2005). On the other hand, according to Touati (2011), this tension between increased demand for participation and skepticism (or even disenchantment) is explained by the fact that citizen engagement is perceived as a source of social desirability, while simultaneously being considered useless by the public. However, while the question of effective citizen participation in debates appears to be a key issue if citizens are to find their way back into these democratic spaces, it seems that the literature has neglected this aspect and has focused more on the processes underlying debate (Jacquet, 2017b), as well as the effects of debate organization on decision-making and actors (Blondiaux & Fourniau, 2011).

Thus, to overcome this ambivalence and ensure that these debates do not remain purely consultative but become truly participatory, it seems essential to first address the issue of effective participation. However, the wide diversity of concertation practices (Bacqué et al., 2010) and the practices used by consultation professionals to encourage the public to participate (e.g., online information, leaflets, door-to-door canvassing, telephone calls, letters, etc.) seem insufficient to reinforce citizens to take part in democratic debate (Mesnil et al., 2009).

# 2. Compliance without pressure: a socially useful lever for citizen engagement

A wide range of techniques (e.g., Dolinski & Grzyb, 2022; Pratkanis, 2007) developed according to commitment theory (Kiesler, 1971) have repeatedly demonstrated (e.g., Burger, 1999) their effectiveness in "getting people to do willingly what is expected of them" (Joule & Beauvois, 1998, p. 29; see also Joule & Beauvois, 2002). Some of these techniques have been the subject of a large number of studies, such as Foot-In-The-Door (FITD – Freedman & Fraser, 1966) or Door-In-The-Face (Cialdini et al., 1975 – for a comparative meta-analytic study of the two techniques see Pascual & Guéguen, 2005). What most of these techniques have in common is that they give priority to action, to behavior. For example, in the case of FITD the idea is to get the individual to accept a first, low-cost action, and then ask for a second, much more costly action. These procedures have been shown not only to influence behavior, but also to be a powerful lever of social utility for citizen engagement (Joule & Beauvois, 1998). Indeed, the social utility of these techniques has been highlighted in public debates surrounding energy transition projects (Author et al., Under review). These procedures have proved useful in many fields, such as the environment to encourage individuals to save energy (e.g., Souchet & Girandola, 2013), or citizen participation to reduce electoral abstentionism (Deschamps et al., 2005). However, these techniques can be difficult to implement, as in the case of Freedman and Fraser's FITD research (1966). The authors' studies showed that people who agreed to place a sign in their window or windscreen were four times more likely to subsequently agree to place a large sign in their garden.

Action principles based on this theory appear to be an interesting way to increase citizen participation in public debates. Nevertheless, the technique used must be easy to integrate into the practices of professionals in the field (e.g., door-to-door canvassing).

# 3. The Four walls technique: a low-cost, compliance without pressure strategies for consultation practitioners

The Four Walls (FW) technique is a compliance without pressure procedure described by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005). This method
was inspired by the practices of door-to-door salespeople. The technique consists in getting the person to answer “yes” to a few successive questions, before submitting the request, which is why it is sometimes referred to as “Repeated Acquiescence” According to the authors, the technique is similar to the FITD, as the experimenter always starts with a low-cost request (“start small”) before stating the higher-cost request. As pointed out by Halimi-Falkowicz et al. (2019), the FW technique has been the subject of few studies, and mainly under the terms, in France, of “Repeated Acquiescence”. These studies show, for example, that the effects appear rapidly, i.e., as early as four questions (Halimi-Falkowicz et al., 2019); that repeated acquiescence is shown to be superior to repeated negation (Guéguen et al., 2013; Halimi-Falkowicz et al., 2011) and that the FW technique can be used in a digital format (Mayeur, 2018; Courbet et al., 2022). Some theoretical explanations are given in the literature. According to Cialdini and Sagarin (2005), the procedure is based on consistency, which can be summarized as follows: “after committing oneself to a position, one should be more willing to comply with requests for behaviors that are consistent with that position” (p. 152). To be consistent with the answers to the previous questions, the person answers “yes” to the last request, which is more engaging. For their part, Halimi-Falkowicz et al. (2019) conclude that it is difficult to differentiate between FITD and FW techniques in terms of comparative effectiveness. Mayeur (2018) as well as Courbet et al. (2022), suggest that the four-wall technique is comparable to binding communication (Joule, 2000; Joule et al., 2004), in which the act and the persuasive message are simultaneous. Overall, these studies highlight several qualities of this technique for consultation practitioners: (1) the act to be carried out for individuals is very short, which is a significant advantage for telephone or door-to-door recruitment; (2) it quickly leads each individual to make several successive decisions (i.e., freeze effect, Lewin, 1951) and (3) the act and semantic content appear concomitantly.

While the existing literature suggests that the FW technique can be used to develop citizen participation, the fact remains that it has been little studied and remains not well circumscribed. In particular, the theoretical explanations in terms of consistency proposed by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005) have received little attention in the literature. Yet, consistency effects can affect the way individuals contribute to public debates.

## 4. The Four Walls technique: a theoretical explanation in terms of consistency that can influence the way individuals engage in debate

Research into the FW technique immediately establishes consistency as a constitutive element of the procedure, without questioning it. The study by Halimi-Falkowicz et al. (2019) is the only one to mention the consistency explanations proposed by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005). However, in this study, the notion is not explicitly manipulated and the authors do not conclude on this point. Indeed, in most cases, the experimental manipulations used involve questions that are related to the final request. As the questions progress, the person is asked to take a stand on socially desirable opinions such as: “Do you think smoking is risky for your health?” (Halimi-Falkowicz et al., 2019; Marchand & Joule, 2007). Only one study uses questions that are inconsistent with the final request. In the research by Guéguen et al. (2013), the questions concerned either do-it-yourself practices or the installation of a solar water heater. These two conditions were followed by a request concerning participation in a survey on eating habits. The results show a greater effect of the experimental conditions compared with the control condition. Here, it seems that the principle of consis-

tency does not play a particular role, since the questions have no link with the request.

However, the universality of this need for consistency and the reasons behind it have been debated. In particular because, the “consistency effects are not easily obtained or replicated” (Cialdini et al., 1995, p. 318). On the basis of this observation, these authors propose to conceive the principle of consistency as a personality variable likely to explain individuals’ preferences in terms of consistency (see Bator & Cialdini, 2006; Cialdini et al., 1995; Guadagno et al., 2001; Sénémeaud & Somat, 2008). They define several dimensions of consistency: internal consistency (i.e., being consistent with oneself; with one’s own responses), public consistency (i.e., the desire to be consistent in the eyes of others) and consistency in others (i.e., the desire for others to be consistent). Various studies have shown that differences in preference for consistency (PFC) are likely to have an impact on attitudes and behavior in consistency-based paradigms, as in the case of FITD (Cialdini et al., 1995; Guadagno et al., 2001; Guadagno & Cialdini, 2010). Others have shown that the effects on behavioral change only appear when the PFC is activated before the experimental situation (Sénémeaud et al., 2014).

Moreover, like the example presented by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005), all the acquiescence questions identified in the literature follow a similar structure. All questions are formulated in relation to the self, using the words “do you think that…”, which could potentially influence self-consistency (Cialdini et al., 1995). The stakes are high in the context of public debate, because the explanations in terms of consistency used by authors can have a significant impact on engagement in debates. For example, an individual who considers himself unlikely to take part in public debates could be motivated by the desire to preserve a consistent self (Berjot & Delelis, 2020). This motivation could lead him to actively avoid any public debate, because he wants his actions to remain consistent with his identity as an uncommitted person.

To our knowledge, no research has sought to overcome the problem of citizens’ ambivalence towards effective participation in debate through the use of the Four Walls Technique (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005). On the other hand, research on the Four Walls Technique does not seem to have addressed the theoretical explanation in terms of consistency proposed by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005). The objective is to find out whether the subsequent commitment to the FW Technique is a matter of consistency with the theme of the request (i.e., citizen participation) or consistency with the self. For this purpose, questions that are consistent with the final request and do not involve the self, questions that elicit self-consistency (Cialdini et al., 1995) and questions that are unrelated to the request will be compared. Therefore, the aim of this article is to use the FW technique (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005) to develop an engagement strategy to ensure that people come to the debate. Hence, 3 studies will be presented to test 3 main hypotheses: (1) FW is more effective than a control condition (i.e., “conventional” contact with the potential participant), (2) effective participation relies on commitment to request-consistency (i.e., cognitive consistency) rather than self-consistency and (3) people engaged via the four-wall technique do not construct the same perceptions according to the types of consistency used (consistency with participation vs. self-consistency).

## 5. Study 1

### 5.1. Method

An a priori sample size analysis was carried out for Chi² test family based on goodness of fit tests: contingency tables – assuming an α of .05, a desired power of 95%, a Df of 2 and a medium to large
effect size based on Halimi-Falkowicz et al. (2019) study 2 (d = .64) – specified a minimum sample size of 38 (G*Power; Faul et al., 2007). To ensure balanced conditions, a slightly larger sample was used for this study. Sixty students (45 female and 15 male, M<sub>age</sub> = 20.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 2.13) were approached individually on the campus of a university in western France and invited to take part in a survey. After accepting to take part in the study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (n = 20 for each condition): (1) FW consistent with the final request, (2) FW eliciting a self-consistency and (3) control condition (i.e., request alone).

The experimenter, equipped with a tablet, presented himself as carrying out several opinion polls on various social issues on the Limesurvey® online platform. To do this, in the FW conditions, the experimenter used the following script:

> "Hello, I'm carrying out several surveys in collaboration with the university about students' opinions on various social issues. Would you agree to take part in this survey?"

In the FW request consistency condition (i.e., the attitude promoting citizen participation), the experimenter asked five questions in random order. This choice of five questions was made to guarantee the engagement effects specific to the FW technique, which appear as early as 4 questions (Halimi-Falkowicz et al., 2019). These questions were: (1) "It is important to take citizens' opinions into account?"; (2) "Exchanging with other citizens helps to better understand each person's daily life?"; (3) "It is important to encourage citizen participation for our democracy?"; (4) "Exchanging with others helps to build the participation of all citizens?"; (5) "It is important to involve citizens in collective life?". Under this condition, the questions were pre-tested with a group of students (n = 35). Only questions to which participants responded positively at a rate of at least 90% were retained. In the FW self-consistency condition, the experimenter also asked five questions in a random order. These questions were constructed from the internal consistency dimension of the Consistency Preference Questionnaire (Cialdini et al., 1995). The questions were: (1) "When I have two ideas that don't agree with each other, does that bother me?"; (2) "I'm not someone who often changes my mind?"; (3) "I value the fact that my actions stem from my ideas?"; (4) "It bothers me to behave in ways that are contrary to my opinions?"; (5) "I'm a person whose opinions and behaviors are consistent with each other?". The questions were also pre-tested on a sample of students (n = 25). Only questions with a positive response of at least 90% were retained.

According to the literature (e.g., Halimi-Falkowicz et al., 2019) and to ensure that our acquiescence conditions elicited only consistency with the theme of participation or self-consistency and were not disrupted by negative responses to certain questions, participants who answered "no"<fnref n="1" /> to at least one of these questions were excluded from the studies: when they answered "no", the study stopped for them. Once the participants had answered the questions, the experimenter thanked them and informed them that the survey was over. After a short break, the experimenter asked the participants if they still had time to take part in a new survey. This new survey was not conducted on the tablet, but on paper, in order to clearly mark the separation between the two studies. This new study focused on student participation in exchange meetings organized at their university. The experimenter then asked the participants to take part in an exchange meeting on a range of social issues (e.g., climate, health, education), in order to implement concrete measures at their university. For each experimental condition, the experimenter used the following script:

> "Thank you for your participation. I'd like to ask you something else. Another project involves student participation in exchange meetings organized at University on various themes (health, environment, digital, etc.). The aim of these meetings will be to provide information, gather students' opinions and develop concrete measures at university level".

In the control condition, the experimenter followed the script below:

> "Hello, I'm carrying out several surveys in collaboration with the university about students' opinions on various social issues. Would you agree to take part in this survey?".

After obtaining the participant's agreement, the experimenter followed this script:

> "This survey concerns student participation in exchange meetings organized at University on various themes (health, environment, digital, etc.). The aim of these meetings will be to provide information, gather students' opinions and develop concrete measures at university level".

Then in all conditions, the experimenter stated the target request: "Do you agree to take part in one of the exchange meetings on either Wednesday 29 or Thursday 30 January 2020 from 8pm to 10pm? Yes/No" and then collected the participant's acceptance or refusal. To increase the credibility of the request, the experimenter asked participants to register for one of the two meetings on a separate sheet (pre-filled with participants).

Finally, a debrief was held with the participants. Using an information and consent leaflet, they were informed of the aims of the study and the condition in which they had been placed. After receiving this information, the participants were asked to give their consent (or not) to participate. If they refused, their digital data was directly deleted and their paper data was returned to them.

## 5.2. Hypotheses

Two specific hypotheses have been developed on the basis of the theoretical elements presented.

**H1.** In line with previous studies demonstrating the superiority of the FW technique compared with a control condition (e.g., Guéguen et al., 2013; Halimi-Falkowicz et al., 2019) it was expected that participants in the two experimental conditions would be more likely to accept the request than participants in the control condition.

**H2.** In accordance with the theoretical explanations in terms of consistency proposed by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005) for the FW technique. It was expected that participants in the FW request-consistency condition would be significantly more likely to accept the target request than participants in the self-consistency condition that is unrelated to the request.

## 5.3. Results

Data were analyzed using JAMOVI® software (version 2.3). Comparison of the categorical variable between groups was performed using Pearson's Chi² test. Firstly, to test the existence of a difference between the 3 conditions (i.e., FW request-consistency vs. FW self-consistency vs. control condition) and secondly to test for specific differences between each of these conditions. Furthermore, Pearson's Chi² test appeared appropriate given the sample size specified by the a priori analysis. This test does not require a suitable sample size for its application. Indeed, to apply the Chi² test, Siegel and Castellan (1988) recommend that: variables be categorical and nominal; samples be independent and observations be, for example, numerical.

<footnote n="1">¹ An average of 10 people per study under all experimental conditions.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Percentages and frequencies of target query acceptance by condition.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Four Walls request-consistency</th><th>Four Walls self-consistency</th><th>Control</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Acceptance rate</th><td>45% (9/20)</td><td>20% (4/20)</td><td>10% (2/20)</td></tr></tbody></table>

A significant main effect of the “condition” variable on acceptance was observed ($\chi^2(58) = 6.93, p = .031, V = .34$). The FW technique consistent with the request proved to be more effective than the control condition (45% vs. 10%; $\chi^2(39) = 6.14, p = .013, \varphi = .39$). The FW technique in which self-consistency was elicited did not prove to be more effective than the control condition (20% vs. 10%; $\chi^2(39) = .784, ns.$). Finally, the two FW conditions were not significantly different from each other (45% vs. 20%; $\chi^2(39) = 2.85, p = .091, \varphi = .26$, Table 1).

## 5.4. Intermediate discussion

The aim of this first study was to: (1) demonstrate that the Four Walls technique is an effective way to engage individuals in a consultation process and (2) examine the explanations of consistency proposed by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005). Under the experimental conditions, it was expected that participants would be more inclined to accept the target's request ($H_1$). The results of this experiment partially validate this hypothesis. Indeed, only the FW request-consistency procedure increases the probability that individuals will take part in an exchange meeting. Conversely, the FW condition eliciting self-consistency did not significantly increase acceptance of the target request. Furthermore, it was expected that participants in the FW request-consistency condition would be more likely to accept the target request than participants in self-consistency condition ($H_2$). The results do not validate this hypothesis, since the two conditions are not significantly different from each other.

In this experiment, it seems that eliciting self-consistency confirmed an initial position not to attend this type of meeting. It was as if the participants in this condition had developed a high level of preference for consistency (PFC). According to Guadagno et al. (2001), individuals with high PFC scores are those who attach importance “to align their responses in most situations with their previous actions, attitudes, and commitments” (p. 859). It seems that individuals are more prone to resist the final request. This element seems to act as a disturbance that would hinder commitment to the target request. Yet, it might have been expected that the FW, considered as a FITD procedure (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005), the simple act of answering a questionnaire (i.e., performing an act by asking little) should have produced significant results for this condition (e.g., Burger, 1999; Pascual & Guéguen, 2005). However, explanations in terms of consistency in the two paradigms (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005; Freedman & Fraser, 1966) seem to bring them closer together rather than drive them apart. In this research, it seems that it is the type of consistency involved in the preliminary act that plays a predominant role in the acceptance or refusal of the request.

It should also be noted that the results of this study have some limitations. Firstly, our request did not take into account the temporal distance to the meeting time. In fact, the proposed meeting dates were the same for all participants. Thus, for some, the meeting took place a few days later, while for others it was the following day. These issues may have played a role in the willingness (or not) of individuals to take part in the exchange meetings. Finally, these results did not allow conclusive findings on consistency effects in this paradigm. Indeed, while the FW self-consistency condition is unrelated to the request, it is not simply an unrelated condition. To

this end, study 2 aims precisely to add a new condition that is unrelated to participation, does not elicit self-consistency and is not a direct contact (i.e., control condition).

# 6. Study 2

## 6.1. Method

An a priori sample size analysis was carried out for $Chi^2$ test family based on goodness of fit tests: contingency tables – assuming an $\alpha$ of .05, a desired power of 95%, a Df of 3 and a medium to large effect size based on the first study in this article ($d = .39$) – specified a minimum sample size of 113 (G*Power; Faul et al., 2007). An a priori sample size analysis was conducted – assuming a desired power of 95% and a medium to large effect size based on the first study in this article ($d = .39$) – specified a minimum sample size of 113 (G*Power; Faul et al., 2007). A slightly larger sample was used for this study. Participants ($n = 120, 105$ female, 13 male et 2 others, $M_{age} = 19.7, ET_{age} = 1.90$) were approached individually on the campus of a university in western France to take part in the study. The study obtained a certificate of compliance with research ethics in September 2021 (Reference: 2021-021).

This study took place at the beginning of the 2021–2022 academic year, outside of the lockdown periods caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Equipped with a tablet, the experimenter used a surgical mask and presented himself as conducting several opinion surveys on a range of social issues using the Limesurvey® online platform. All scripts used to approach the participants were the same as those used in study 1. The only difference was that it was specified in the request that the exchange meetings organized by the university would take place on the Zoom® platform.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions ($n = 30$ for each condition): (1) FW request-consistency; (2) FW eliciting self-consistency; (3) FW unrelated to the final request and (4) in the control condition. Questions consistent with the request (i.e., attitude that promoting citizen participation) and questions aimed at eliciting self-consistency were the same as for study 1. For the FW condition unrelated to the final request, the questions were adapted from the work of Halimi-Falkowicz et al. (2019) and were based on the smoking theme: (1) “Is smoking risky for your health?”; (2) “Smoking is addictive?”; (3) “It is important to promote anti-smoking campaigns on TV or radio?”; (4) “Are cigarettes expensive nowadays?”; (5) “For a pregnant woman, is smoking risky (for her unborn child)?”. In each FW condition, after answering the questions, the experimenter thanked the participants and informed them that the survey was over. After a short break, the experimenter asked the participants if they still had some time to take part in a new survey. As in study 1, to mark the end of the first survey, this “new” one was no longer conducted on a tablet, but on paper, and this time focused on student participation in exchange meetings organized by the university, but taking place on the Zoom® online platform. Due to sanitary conditions at the time, it was not possible to hold this type of event face-to-face. The experimenter invited participants to take part in an exchange meeting on different social issues (e.g., climate, health, education, etc.), either after asking the FW questions (experimental conditions), or directly after introducing themselves (control condition). The researcher then collected the acceptance or refusal of the request “Do you agree to take part in one of the exchange meetings on either Wednesday XX/or Thursday XX September 2021 from 8 pm to 10 pm” (measures). The experiments took place over three weeks, on Mondays and Tuesdays, so that each individual had the same temporal distance from the meetings, either two days or three days. As in the first study, the credibility of the study was enhanced
<table><caption>**Table 2**
Percentages and frequencies of target query acceptance by condition.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Four walls<br>request-consistency</th><th>Four walls self-consistency</th><th>Four Walls<br>request-unrelated</th><th>Control</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Acceptance rate</th><td>50%<br>(15/30)</td><td>30%<br>(9/30)</td><td>13.3%<br>(4/30)</td><td>16.7%<br>(5/30)</td></tr></tbody></table>

by asking participants to register for one of the two meetings on a separate sheet.

Finally, a debriefing took place with the participants. Using an information and consent leaflet, participants were informed of the study objectives and the condition in which they had been placed. After receiving this information, the participants were asked to give (or refuse) their consent to participate. If they refused, their digital data was directly deleted and their paper data was returned to them.

## 6.2. Hypotheses

Two specific hypotheses were developed on the basis of the theoretical evidence presented.

**H3.** It was expected that participants in all three FW conditions would be significantly more likely to accept the target request compared to participants in the control condition.

**H4.** The results of study 1 show the superiority of the FW request-consistency technique compared with the control condition, and no difference between this condition and the FW self-consistency condition. Thus, it was expected that participants in the FW request-consistency condition would not be significantly more likely to accept the request than participants in the self-consistency condition (H4a), but that they would be significantly more likely to accept the request than participants in the request unrelated condition (H4b).

## 6.3. Results

Data were analyzed using JAMOVI® software (version 2.3). As for the first study in this article, comparison of the categorical variable between groups was performed using Pearson's Chi² test. Firstly, to test the existence of a difference between the 4 conditions (i.e., FW request-consistency vs. FW self-consistency vs. FW unrelated to the request vs. control condition) and secondly to test for specific differences between each of these conditions.

The analysis revealed a significant main effect of the "condition" variable on the acceptance of the request ($\chi^2(117) = 12.5, p = .006, V = .323$). FW request-consistency turns out to be more efficient compared to the control condition (50% vs. 16.7%; $\chi^2(59) = 7.5, p = .006, \varphi = .354$) and turns out to be more effective compared to the FW unrelated to the request condition (50% vs. 13.3%; $\chi^2(59) = 9.32, p = .002, \varphi = .394$). The condition linked to the request is not significantly different from the condition eliciting self-consistency (50% vs. 30%; $\chi^2(59) = 2.50, ns$). FW self-consistency is not significantly different from the control condition (30% vs. 16.7%; $\chi^2(59) = .222, ns$) and is also no different from the condition with an unrelated relationship with the request (30% vs. 13.3%; $\chi^2(59) = .117, ns$). The FW request unrelated condition is not significantly more effective than the control condition (13.3% vs. 16.7%; $\chi^2(59) = .718, ns, Table 2$).

## 6.4. Intermediate discussion

The aim of this second study was to replicate the results obtained in the first study. The results of the study once again demonstrated the effectiveness of the FW technique to develop citizen participation.

Participants in the three experimental conditions were expected to be more likely to accept the request than participants in the control condition (H3). The results of the study partially validate this hypothesis. As in the first study, a high percentage of participants exposed to the FW request-consistency condition accepted to take part in an exchange meeting. Conversely, as in study 1, FW self-consistency unrelated (i.e., thematic) to the final request did not significantly increase acceptance to participate in the debate. In addition, contrary to the results observed by Guéguen et al. (2013), unrelated questions showed no effect on request acceptance.

The results of studies 1 and 2 show that the FW technique allows the development of participation and seems to be a paradigm based on consistency as proposed by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005). This suggests that, in this paradigm, individuals follow a logic of cognitive consistency between: the different questions they successively answer and agree to, and their acceptance of the request on the basis of this agreement. In this paradigm, in accordance with the proposals of Cialdini and Sagarin (2005), the participant appears to take a decision by successive acquiescence (Lewin, 1951) with regard to a socially desirable position (e.g., citizen participation). Then, in order to maintain a certain cognitive harmony, they accept the final behavior, which is consistent with their initial position.

Furthermore, in this particular technique, the effect of consistency could be intruded into a dialogue involvement mechanism (Dolinski et al., 2001; Dolinski et al., 2005). The conditions differed in the ways they mobilized the communicative aspect of the Four Walls technique. Each experimental condition used: (1) a conventional form of communicative interaction, questioning or inquiry, and (2) a specific content, in one case related to the request, and in the other cases unrelated to the request. This would suggest that, in order for the dialogue involvement effect to be fully effective, the Four Walls technique needs to be structured by elements of content (i.e., consistency with the request) and elements of form (i.e., a succession of questions). Thus, this technique could be a hyphen between a content-focused technique such as "Even a penny will help" (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976) and a technique based on the form of communication "dialogue" (Dolinski et al., 2005).

In the first two studies, participants were asked to take a position in relation to a specific content. Indeed, the participants were asked to answer either five questions about citizen participation or questions about self-consistency. In particular, participants had to endorse (or not) a socially shared representation of participation, or to endorse (or not) a representation expressing self-consistency. The initial results demonstrate an increase in people's intention to take part in a debate. Nevertheless, they provide limited information on the state of mind people are likely to adopt when they actually go to the debate. However, if the procedure also exerts a persuasive influence on individuals (Courbet et al., 2022), this influence may pose a problem when individuals participate in debates. For the debate to be a real dialogue, stakeholders must listen to each other, seek to understand each other in order to achieve mutual understanding (Nadarajah et al., 2024). The question is therefore to know what influence these procedures may have on people's perceptions and state of mind.

In 1961, Moscovici analyzed the social construction of people's perceptions (Moscovici, 1961). This theory investigates the way in which individuals and groups seize upon a problem, a risk or a familiar (or unfamiliar) social object in order to give it meaning. These
naive theories of the social environment (Jodelet, 1984) seek to provide a more accessible understanding of the world. They aim to interpret reality and are made up of opinions, attitudes, beliefs and information about an object or a situation (Rateau et al., 2011). These perceptions are built up through collective communication (Moliner, 2001) and cognitive processes (Rateau & Moliner, 2009). Analysis of these perceptions aims to study the evocations expressed by individuals in order to understand the meaning they give to the object under study. Thus, in study 3, the aim is to use transversal methodologies from social representation theory (Moliner & Lo Monaco, 2017) to study the perceptions constructed at the end of the commitment procedure.

# 7. Study 3

## 7.1. Method

### 7.1.1. Participants and procedure

An a priori sample size analysis was carried out for Fisher tests based on Anova: Fixed effects, omnibus, one-way – assuming an α of .05, a desired power of 95%, 3 for the number of groups and a medium to large effect size based on the first study from this article (d = .39) – specified a minimum sample size of 105 (G*Power; Faul et al., 2007). One hundred and four students (96 female, 5 male and 1 non-binary, $M_{age} = 19.7$, $ET_{ages} = 1.80$) were approached individually on the campus of a university in western France. The scripts used to approach the participants were the same as those used in study 1 and 2. The experimenter presented himself as conducting several opinion surveys on various social issues. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (n = 34 for each condition): (1) FW request-consistency; (2) FW eliciting self-consistency; (3) control condition. Based on the results of study 2, only questions that were consistent with the request and those that elicited self-consistency were retained. The questions were the same as in study 1 and study 2. Once the FW questions had been completed, the experimenter thanked the participants and informed them that the survey was over. After a short break, the experimenter followed the script used in study 1 and 2 and asked the participants if they still had some time to take part in a new survey. This new survey was also conducted on a tablet and focused on student participation in exchange meetings organized by the university on a range of social issues (e.g., climate, health, education) with the aim of implementing concrete measures at university level. The experimenter collected the participant's intention to take part in an exchange meeting, either directly after introducing himself (control condition) or after asking the FW questions (experimental conditions). Behavioral intention was measured by two items: "I intend to take part in an exchange meeting organized at the university" and "I want to take part in an exchange meeting organized at the university". Respondents were asked to assess their intention to take part in these exchange meetings on a seven-point scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly agree"). Cronbach's alpha between the two items was satisfying (α = .866). After completing the behavioral intention items, participants were asked to complete a verbal association task (e.g., Lo Monaco et al., 2017; Moliner & Lo Monaco, 2017): they had to produce four words or expressions that came into their mind when they thought of the term "Exchange Meeting". The aim was to understand how FW procedures could contribute to the way perceptions of these future meetings were organized, and in what state of mind an individual was likely to attend this type of meeting.

Finally, a debriefing took place with the participants. They were given an information leaflet explaining the aims of the study and the condition in which they had been placed. After receiving this infor-

mation, the participants were asked to give their consent (or not) to participate. If they refused, the data was immediately deleted.

### 7.1.2. Hypotheses

On the basis of the theoretical elements presented, we have formulated the following hypotheses.

**H**5. It was expected that there would be a significant main effect of the condition variable (i.e., FW request-consistency and FW eliciting self-consistency) on the intention to participate in an exchange meeting. In the event of a significant effect of the condition variable on the behavioral intention dimension it was expected that.

**H**5a. In line with the results of studies 1 and 2, participants in the request-consistency FW condition would express a stronger intention to participate in an exchange meeting compared with participants in the other conditions,

**H**6. An effect of experimental conditions and behavioral intention on the organization and content of evocations concerning exchange meetings was expected.

## 7.2. Results

Data were analyzed using JAMOVI® (version 2.3), R® (version 4.1.) and Rcommander® (version 2.8-0). First, One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on data to examine whether there was a significant difference between conditions (i.e., FW request-consistency vs. FW self-consistency vs. control condition) in their behavioral intention to take part in an exchange meeting. In order to study the structuring of perceptions, one factorial correspondence analyses were performed (e.g., Moliner & Lo Monaco, 2017; Nadarajah et al., 2022). This descriptive analysis allows the semantic content collected through the evocation tasks to be projected onto a two-dimensional axis in relation to several variables (e.g., "experimental conditions" and "participant behavioral intention score").

### 7.2.1. Behavioral intention

On average, participants expressed a greater intention to take part in an exchange meeting when the questions were consistent with the request. Nevertheless, analysis of the data shows no significant effect between the different experimental conditions ($F(2,99) = 2.37; p = .098, ns$). The data collected did not yield the expected effect on behavioral intention (Table 3).

### 7.2.2. Correspondence factor analysis

Data from hierarchical evocations (i.e., 403 evocations collected) were analyzed using correspondence factor analysis (CORR. F. A., cf. Deschamps, 2003). CORR. F. A. was used to identify the differentiating factors between our three conditions (i.e., FW request-consistency vs. FW self-consistency vs. control condition) and what is common and shared between them. CORR. F. A. involves processing a contingency table that cross-references the words most frequently mentioned by subjects with our two variables of interest. These variables are conditions (FW.REQUEST.CONSISTENCY vs. FW.SELF.CONSISTENCY vs. CONTROL) and behavioral intention to engage in a debate. "Low" and "high" classes were defined, divided by the median (HIGH INTENTION vs. LOW INTENTION).

### 7.2.3. Correspondence factor analysis on the terms "exchange meetings"

A factorial correspondence analysis was performed on the verbal productions of participants with a frequency greater than or equal to 6 (i.e., 259 evocations, 76.85% of the corpus excluding hapaxes – 339 evocations). CORR. F. A. reveals two factors that
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Means (and standard deviations) for behavioral intention.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Four Walls request-consistency</th><th>Four Walls self-consistency</th><th>Control</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Behavioral intention</th><td>3.84 (1.65)</td><td>3.19 (1.25)</td><td>3.16 (1.41)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Graphical representation of the results produced by the factorial correspondence analysis for factor 1 (solid line block) and 2 (dotted line block) regarding the "exchange meetings" inducing term. Note: the "experimental conditions" contribute to the formation of factor 1; the "control condition and intention levels" contribute to the formation of factor 2; and the "control condition" contributes to the formation of factors 1 and 2. "Perceptions" refers to perceptions that contribute to the formation of factor 1; "Perceptions" refers to perceptions that contribute to the formation of factor 2; "Perceptions" refers to perceptions that contribute to the formation of both factors 1 and 2.</figcaption></figure>

explain 80.15% of the table's inertia (Factor 1 = 46.37%; factor 2 = 33.78%). CORR. F. A. shows the two variables (i.e., Experimental conditions: FW.REQUEST.CONSISTENCY vs. FW.SELF.CONSISTENCY vs. CONTROL; Behavioral intention: HIGH.INTENTION vs. LOW.INTENTION) included in the analysis. To decide whether a term defines one or several factors, the approach in terms of contributions per factor (CF) proposed by Deschamps (2003) was used. Factor 1 receives a contribution from the terms of the "Experimental conditions" variable: CF (FW.REQUEST.CONSISTENCY) = .24 + CF (FW.SELF.CONSISTENCY) = .52 + CF (CONTROL) = .06, i.e., a contribution of 80%, to the formation of the factor. Factor 2 receives a contribution from the "Experimental conditions" variable terms: CF (CONTROL) = .38 + CF, and "Behavioral intention": CF (INTENTION.HIGH) = .21, + CF (INTENTION.LOW) = .21, i.e., a contribution of 80% to the formation of factor 2. Fig. 1 shows this organization.

The experimental conditions (i.e., FW.REQUEST.CONSISTENCY; FW.SELF.CONSISTENCY and CONTROL) determine participants' productions and the organization of perceptions towards "exchange meetings". Participants in the request-consistency FW condition associate exchange meetings with the term's "solution" and "participation". These evocations refer to the messages delivered by the FW procedure consistent with citizen participation. For participants in the self-consistency FW condition, the exchange meeting tends to be associated with the idea of "opinion",

referring to the idea of expressing one's own opinions during the meeting. For their part, participants in the control condition evoke elements such as "dialogue", "discussion" and "decision". They evoke descriptive elements generated by the inducing terms.

The behavioral intention to take part in an exchange meeting also organizes participants' productions. Participants with a high intention will evoke the word "sharing", while those with a low intention mention "dialogue" and "speak up".

## 8. General discussion

In this third study, it was expected, in line with the literature, that getting an individual to answer "yes" to several successive questions would increase their intention to participate in an exchange meeting. The results of this research do not support Hypothesis 5 (H5). Indeed, no significant effect of the technique was observed, whatever the condition. As in studies 1 and 2, individuals in the FW request-consistency condition were, on average, more likely to intend to take part in an exchange meeting than those in the other conditions. However, these differences are not sufficient to obtain significant differences, which invalidates hypothesis H5a. The effectiveness of FW appears to be greater when the request is formulated in a binary yes/no format (studies 1 and 2) and less important when the request is formulated on a behavioral inten-
tion scale (study 3). This superiority for yes-no measures in the Four Walls technique has already been observed by Halimi-Falkowicz et al. (2019).

In line with the third hypothesis, analysis of the evocations provided by participants reveals that the FW technique and levels of intention appear to be crucial to explain the structuring of “exchange meeting” perceptions. In this study, the majority of participants had never heard of the project to organize an exchange meeting to propose solutions to various societal issues. Thus, for individuals in the control condition, perceptions of the exchange meetings are descriptive (i.e., dialogue, discussion, etc.). These descriptions do not seem to be affected by the FW technique. The CFA terms suggest what this type of meeting could be, building perceptions through the association of inductive terms. For the experimental conditions (i.e., FW request-consistency and FW self-consistency), the elements evoked diverge. Emphasizing self-consistency seems to encourage people to express their personal opinions more readily. While in previous studies, eliciting self-consistency seemed to enable individuals not to adopt the target behavior, here it does not affect intention, which remains high. Self-consistency seems to emphasize the importance of going to the debate to give one's opinion, as if this behavior were a self-affirmation (e.g., Aronson et al., 1999; Steele, 1988). For their part, individuals in the FW request-consistency condition and those with the strongest intention to participate express the ideas of solution and participation. For participants in the FW request-consistency condition, it seems that answering the questions has made salient the idea that it is necessary to participate as a citizen. It seems that these participants have integrated the idea of participation into their perceptions. This would explain why the conditions (i.e., FW request-consistency and High-intention) organize perceptions in the same way, and why this condition led to the highest behavioral engagement (study 1 and study 2). These data are in line with the theoretical explanations advanced by Courbet et al. (2022) and suggest that, beyond the expected effects on participants' commitment to attend an exchange meeting, the procedure also has persuasive effects on individuals. In other words, the consistency process suggested by Cialdini and Sagarin (2005) would encourage individuals to endorse a certain way of representing things.

However, this study has some limitations. Firstly, the sample size did not allow us to explore the structuring of perceptions in greater detail. A larger sample would have made it possible to divide the intention measure into three categories (low, medium, high). In this way, a more refined analysis could have assessed the existence of any differences that might exist between these different individuals. Secondly, the survey methodology was limited in time. This led to certain choices, notably to focus on perceptions, at the expense of other psychological processes likely to characterize the link between individuals and their actions following a commitment procedure (Girandola, 2003). Finally, this study offers only a snapshot at a precise moment in time and on a debate that has no real stakes for the participants. As a result, the evocations obtained are relatively positive, which appears far from the positions that can emerge during a debate.

## 9. Conclusion

Helping citizens to get engaged in debates by overcoming the ambivalence between strong demand for participation and skepticism can be a real challenge. The Four Walls technique appears to be a promising solution for overcoming this challenge and fostering citizen mobilization within these discussion spaces. However, theoretical explanations in terms of consistency in this paradigm must be used with caution. Otherwise, the ability of individuals to truly exchange and listen to each other in these spaces could be

affected. Further studies should be carried out both to investigate the processes involved in this technique and to study the effectiveness of the technique in different types of field intervention.

The promising results presented in this article are an invitation to consultation professionals to adopt this technique as their own. Indeed, by their presence and by speaking out in the debate, stakeholders who have until now been neglected could generate conflicts and controversies that could potentially be a source of social innovation for decision-making and the development of solutions in the implementation of projects. Thus, adding this technique to their interventions could not only contribute to improving their practices, but also play an essential role in revitalizing spaces for democratic expression in our societies. The Four Walls technique, at the service of social utility projects (e.g., ecological and energy transition; digital transition; healthcare provision, etc.), could be a significant asset in stimulating individual commitment at the service of collective commitment.

## Disclosure of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

## Funding

All the research presented in this article was financially supported by the French National Research Agency SGSE ("Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering").

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank the different partners of the "Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering" (SGE - https://www.gefiss.eu/en) project for their collaboration on this project.

## Références

Aitken, M. (2010). Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. *Energy Policy*, **38**(4), 1834-1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.060

Aronson, J., Cohen, G., & Nail, P. R. (1999). Self-affirmation theory: An update and appraisal. In E. Harmon-Jones, & J. Mills (Eds.), *Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology* (pp. 127-147). American Psychological Association (https://doi.org/10.1037/10318-006)

Bacqué, M. H., Sintomer, Y., Flamand, A., & Nez, H. (2010). *La démocratie participative inachevée : genèse, adaptations et diffusions. [Unfinished participatory democracy: genesis, adaptations and dissemination]*. Adels.

Barbier, R. (2005). Quand le public prend ses distances avec la participation [When the public distances itself from participation]. *Natures Sciences Sociétés*, **13**(3) https://doi.org/10.1051/nss:2005040

Bator, R. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2006). The nature of consistency motivation: Consistency, aconsistency, and antconsistency in a dissonance paradigm. *Social Influence*, **1**(3), 208-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510600823638

Berjot, S., & Delelis, G. (2020). *Les 30 grandes notions de psychologie sociale. [The 30 key concepts of social psychology]* (2nd ed.). Dunod (https://doi.org/10.3917/dunod.berjo.2020.01.0025)

Blondiaux, L., & Fourniau, J.-M. (2011). Un bilan des recherches sur la participation du public en démocratie : beaucoup de bruit pour rien ? [*A review of research on public participation in democracy: Much ado about nothing?*]. *Participations*, **1**(1), 8-35. https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.001.0008

Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, **3**(4), 303-325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304.2

Cheurfa, M., & Chanvril, F. (2019). *2009-2019 : la crise de la confiance politique. [2009-2019: The crisis of political confidence]*. https://www.sciencespo.fr/cevipof/sites/sciencespo.fr/cevipof/files/CEVIPOF_confiance_10ans.CHEURFA_CHANVRIL_2019.pdf

Cialdini, R. B., & Sagarin, B. J. (2005). *Principles of interpersonal influence*. In T. C. Brock, & M. C. Green (Eds.), *Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives* (2nd ed., pp. 143-169). Sage Publications, Inc.

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**(4), 599-604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.599
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioural implications. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69*(2), 318–328.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31*(2), 206–215.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076284

Commission Nationale du Débat Public. (2014). *Le citoyen et la décision publique—Enquête TNS SOFRES*. [The citizen and public decision-making-TNS SOFRES survey]. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj8gNmlmoj7AhWRwoUKHWFbA9KqFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Farchives.debатpublic.fr%2Ffile%2F720%2Fdownload%3Ftoken%3D77xJcA&usg=AOvVaw2lvJcdpT5A43WODdQ4P4i4

Courbet, D., Mayeur, D., Souchet, L., & Halimi-Falkowicz, S. (2022). Les effets comportementaux de la procédure d'acquiescement répété appliquée à la communication numérique. [The behavioural effects of the repeated acquiescence procedure applied to digital communication]. In M. F. Agnoletti, & Salès-Wuillemin (Eds.), *Communications réelles et virtuelles: Nouvelles perspectives en psychologie sociale de la communication et du langage*. [Real and virtual communication. New perspectives in social psychology of communication and language]. Presses Universitaires de Dijon.

Dalton, R. J., & Welzel, C. (2014). *The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens*. Cambridge University Press.

Mesnil, C., Sautiere, A., Lasfargues, M., Solda, J., & Monnoyer-Smith, L. (2009). *Analyse des pratiques de la concertation en France*. pp. 211. Association Décider Ensemble (https://side.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/GUAD/doc/OAI.2/sdx-localhost-8080-temis-notices-Temis-0085280/analyse-des-pratiques-de-la-concertation-en-france)

Deschamps, J.-C. (2003). Analyse des correspondances et variations des contenus de représentations sociales. [Correspondence analysis and variations in the content of social representations]. In J. C. Abric (Ed.), *Méthodes d'étude des représentations sociales* (pp. 179–199). Érès. https://www.cairn.info/methodes-d-etude-des-representations-sociales-9782749201238-page-179.htm

Deschamps, J.-C., Joule, R. V., & Gumy, C. (2005). La communication engagante au service de la réduction de l'abstentionnisme électorale : une application en milieu universitaire. [Binding communication to reduce electoral abstentionism: An application in a university environment]. *European Review of Applied Psychology*, 55(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2004.05.002

Dolinski, D., & Grzyb, T. (2022). *100 effective techniques of social influence: When and why people comply*. Taylor & Francis.

Dolinski, D., Nawrat, M., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 27(11), 1395–1406. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711001

Dolinski, D., Grzyb, T., Olejnik, J., Prusakowski, S., & Urban, K. (2005). Let's dialogue about penny: Effectiveness of dialogue involvement and legitimizing paltry contribution techniques. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology*, 35(6), 1150–1170.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02164.x

European Court of Auditors. (2019). *Donnez votre avis* : les consultations publiques de la Commission mobilisent les citoyens, mais les activités de communication ne sont pas à la hauteur. [“Express your opinion”: The Commission’s public consultations are mobilising citizens, but the communication activities are not up to scratch]. Rapport spécial n° 14, 2019. pp. 81. Publications Office (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2865/352330)

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. *Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175–191.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Fournier, P., Kolk, H. van der, Carty, R. K., Blais, A., & Rose, J. (2011). *When citizens decide: Lessons from citizen assemblies on electoral reform*. Oxford University Press.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 4(2), 195–202.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552

Girandola, F. (2003). *Psychologie de la persuasion et de l'engagement*. [Psychology of persuasion and commitment]. Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.

Guadagno, R. E., Asher, T., Demaine, L. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2001). When saying yes leads to saying no: Preference for consistency and the reverse foot-in-the-door effect. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 27(7), 859–867.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277008

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Preference for consistency and social influence: A review of current research findings. *Social Influence*, 5(3), 152–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510903332378

Guéguen, N., Joule, R. V., Courbet, D., Halimi-Falkowicz, S., & Archand, A. A. (2013). Repeating "Yes" in a first request and compliance with a later request: The four walls technique. *Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal*, 41(2), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.199

Halimi-Falkowicz, S., Vaidis, D., Souchet, L., Courbet, D., Fourcet-Courbet, M.-P., & Joule, R. V. (2019). L'acquiescement répété appliqué à la privation de tabac en comparaison au pied-dans-la-porte [Repeated acquiescence applied to tobacco deprivation compared to foot-in-door]. *Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement*, 51(4), 248–253.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000136

Halimi-Falkowicz, S., Marchand, M., Vaidis, D., & Guéguen, N. (2011). Vers une nouvelle interprétation de la procédure d'acquiescence répété. [Towards a new interpretation of the repeated acquiescence procedure]. *Journal National de La Recherche En IUT, 2*, 49–57.

Jacquet, V. (2017a). Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics. *European Journal of Political Research*, 56(3), 640–659.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12195

Jacquet, V. (2017b). Délibérer ou ne pas délibérer ? La (non-)participation dans les dispositions délibératifs tirés au sort. [To deliberate or not to deliberate? (Non-)participation in randomly selected deliberative processes]. Université Catholique de Louvain. https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal:186556

Jodelet, D. (1984). Réflexions sur le traitement de la notion de représentation sociale en psychologie sociale [Reflections on the treatment of the notion of social representation in social psychology]. *Communication. Information Médias Théories*, 6(2), 14–41. https://doi.org/10.3406/comin.1984.1284

Joule, R.-V. (2000). Pour une communication organisationnelle engagante : vers un nouveau paradigme [Binding organisational communication: Towards a new paradigm]. *Sciences de la Société*, 50–51, 279–295.

Joule, R. V., & Beauvois, J.-L. (1998). *La soumission librement consentie*. [Compliance without pressure] (7th ed.). PUF.

Joule, R. V., & Beauvois, J.-L. (2002). *Petit traité de manipulation à l'usage des honnêtes gens*. [Small treaty of manipulation for the use of honest people]. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

Joule, R. V., Py, J., & Bernard, F. (2004). Qui dit quoi, à qui, en lui faisant faire quoi ? Vers une communication engagante. [Who says what, to whom, and gets them to do what? Towards binding communication]. In M. Bromberg, & A. Trognon (Eds.), *Psychologie Sociale et Communication* (pp. 205–218). Dunod.

Kiesler, C. A. (1971). *The psychology of commitment: Experiments linking behavior to belief*. Academic Press.

Lewin, K. (1951). *Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers*. Harpers.

Lo Monaco, G., Piermattéo, A., Rateau, P., & Tavani, J. L. (2017). Methods for studying the structure of social representations: A critical review and agenda for future research. *Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour*, 47(3), 306–331.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12124

Marchand, M., & Joule, R.-V. (2007). Privation de tabac et engagement : test d'une nouvelle procédure. [Smoking cessation and commitment: Testing a new procedure]. In *Communication présentée au IVe Congrès international de psychologie de la santé en langue française*, «Psychologie, Santé et Ouverture», Toulouse, France.

Mayeur, D. (2018). *Communication numérique en contexte organisationnel : approches qualitatives et expérimentales des représentations sociales et des processus de réception dans le e-commerce*. [Digital communication in organizational context: Qualitative and experimental approaches to social representations and reception processes in e-commerce]. Université Aix-Marseille. https://www.theses.fr/2018AIXM0273

Moliner, P. (2001). *La dynamique des représentations sociales : pourquoi et comment les représentations se transforment-elles?* [The dynamics of social representations: Why and how do representations change?]. Presses universitaires de Grenoble.

Moliner, P., & Lo Monaco, G. (2017). *Méthodes d'association verbale pour les sciences humaines et sociales*. [Verbal association methods for humanities and social sciences]. Presses universitaires de Grenoble.

Moscovici, S. (1961). The représentation sociale de la psychanalyse [The social representation of psychoanalysis]. *Bulletin de psychologie*, 14(194), 807–810.

Nadarajah, K., Bordel, S., David, J.-C., Jammes, L., Rayssac, G.-L., & Somat, A. (2022). Stakeholders' perceptions of helium and carbon dioxide risks in a subsurface engineering project in France. *Energy Reports*, 8, 14009–14019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.123

Nadarajah, K., Brun, L., Bordel, S., Ah-Tchine, E., Dumesnil, A., Mourato, A., M., et al. (2024). A three-stage psychosocial engineering-based method to support controversy and promote mutual understanding between stakeholders: The case of CO₂ geological storage. *Energies*, 17(5), Article5. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051014

Papadopoulos, Y. (2013). *Democracy in Crisis?: Politics, governance and policy*. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Pascal, A., & Guéguen, N. (2005). Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: A comparative meta-analytic study. *Psychological Reports*, 96(1), 122–128.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr096.1.122-128

Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). *The science of social influence: Advances and future progress*. Psychology Press.

Rateau, P., & Moliner, P. (2009). *Représentations sociales et processus sociognitifs. [Social representations and socio-cognitive processes]*. Presses Universitaires de Rennes. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02149011

Rateau, P., Moliner, P., Guimelli, C., & Abric, J.-C. (2011). Social representation theory. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & T. Higgins (Eds.), *Handbook of theories of social psychology* (Vol. 2) (pp. 478–498). Sage.

SciencesPo-CEVIPOF. (2023). *Derrière la crise sociale, la défiance encore et toujours. Baromètre de la confiance politique/vague 14*. [Behind the social crisis, mistrust remains. Political confidence barometer/wave 14]. SciencesPo-CEVIPOF. https://www.sciencespo.fr/cevipof/sites/sciencespo.fr/cevipof/files/Barometre%20de%20la%20confiance%20en%20politique%20-%20vague%2014%20-%20fevrier%202023%20-%20vF.R.pdf%201.pdf

Sénémeaud, C., & Somat, A. (2008). Préférence pour la consistance et changement d'attitude post-comportemental : analyse de résultats a priori contradictoires [Preference for consistency and post-behavioural attitude change: Analysis of a priori contradictory results]. *Revue internationale de psychologie sociale* [International Review of Social Psychology], 21(4), 55–87.

Sénémeaud, C., Mange, J., Fointiat, V., & Somat, A. (2014). Being hypocritical disturbs some people more than others: How individual differences in preference for interpretation of the repeated acquiescence procedure]. *Journal National de La Recherche En IUT, 2*, 49–57.
consistency moderate the behavioral effects of the induced-hypocrisy paradigm.

*Social Influence*, 9(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2013.791235

Shindler, B., & Neburka, J. (1997). Public participation in forest planning: Eight attributes of success. *Journal of Forestry*, 95(1), 17–19.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/95.1.17

Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). *Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences*.

McGraw-Hill.

Souchet, L., & Girandola, F. (2013). Double foot-in-the-door, social representations, and environment: Application for energy savings. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology*, 43(2), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01000.x

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), *Advances in experimental social psychology* (Vol. 21) (pp. 261–302). Academic Press (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4)

Touati, C. (2011). *Citoyenneté et engagement : analyse des perceptions et tensions citoyennes, détection et induction de facteurs d'engagement* [Analysis of public perceptions and tensions, detection and induction of commitment factors]. https://www.theses.fr/2011CAEN1626