# An Offer They Can't Refuse: The Foot-In-The-Why Paradigm

Sebastien Meineri, Mickaël Dupré

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

## To cite this version:

Sebastien Meineri, Mickaël Dupré. An Offer They Can't Refuse: The Foot-In-The-Why Paradigm. North American Journal of Psychology, 2021. hal-04323311

HAL Id: hal-04323311

https://hal.science/hal-04323311v1

Submitted on 28 Mar 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_2.png" /></figure>
# An Offer They Can't Refuse: The Foot-In-The-Why Paradigm

Sébastien Meineri<fnref n="1" /> and Mickaël Dupré<fnref n="2" />

Previous studies have examined the effect of a prior general request for a service or a favor before formulating a specific request and shown an increase in the acceptance rate. The purpose of this study is to replicate the results and to extend the investigation of the effect by mobilizing action identification theory. Results reveal that in addition to a prior request for a service or favor, high-level identities of action carrying information about the social value of the action increase the rates of acceptance of answering a questionnaire (Exp. 1) or donating money (Exp. 2). The discussion focuses on the psychological mechanism at work in terms of action identification theory, the activation of social norms, and cognitive dissonance theory. Future research directions are proposed.

**Keywords:** Social Influence; Consistency; Action Identification Theory

Since the first study on the foot-in-the-door paradigm, the compliance without pressure research field initiated by Freedman and Fraser (1966) has produced nearly 30 different compliance paradigms (Dolinski 2016). Some of these, in particular the foot-in-the-door (Freedman & Fraser, 1966), foot-in-the-mouth (Howard, 1990), or lowball (Cialdini et al., 1978) paradigms, are sequential and draw their effectiveness from the consistency mechanism. People are first induced to produce a costless act, answer a trivial question, or make an *a priori* advantageous decision, before being asked to produce a costly act. Results reveal that they are more likely to accept the costly act than if they had been directly solicited. Initially proposed by Heider (1958), the consistency mechanism was theorized as a compliance leverage via commitment theory (Joule & Beauvois, 1998; Kiesler, 1971). This theory postulates that producing behaviors in specific circumstances (costly, repeated, visible, irrevocable, and free behaviors) leads people to accept and/or produce other behaviors in the same behavioral register through a preference for consistency.

*Author info:* Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Sebastien Meineri, Université Bretagne Sud, France. sebastien.meineri@univ-ubs.fr

*North American Journal of Psychology*, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 3, 361-384.
© NAJP

<footnote n="1">¹Université Bretagne Sud, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Université de la Polynésie Française, France</footnote>
Meineri et al. (2015) tested the new consistency compliance paradigm. They approached passers-by either directly asking them for money for a bus ticket, or preceding this request with a more general request for a service. Results revealed that answers to the service request were mostly favorable or neutral, which induced acceptance of the precisely formulated target request (i.e., giving money to buy a bus ticket). Similar results were obtained by Flynn and Bohn (2012) to a request to answer a questionnaire. In this case, the individuals were previously asked not for a service but for a favor. To account for the results of these two studies, Meineri et al. (2015) suggested that a request for a service or favor prompts the social norm of volunteering (Brown & Lewinson, 1987) or social responsibility (Berkovitz & Daniels, 1963), and complicates a refusal, which would then correspond to the violation of these social norms. Hence, the favorable or neutral answer to the prior request commits the individuals in their response, or involves them in the dialogue, fostering acceptance of the target request.

Regarding the acceptance of the prior request, Meineri et al. (2015) also considered a more general interpretation in terms of the identification level. The action identification theory (Vallacher & Wegner, 1985) posits that individuals report behavior in different ways depending on the person, the behavior in question, and the situation in which it is produced. This identity of action is evaluated in terms of level, ranging from low to high. An action identified at a low level - low-level identity - is described with reference to its concrete components such as the stages of its realization or the specific gestures it involves. It answers the question: How is the action carried out? Conversely, an action identified at a high level – high-level identity – is described in a more abstract way through the purpose it targets, its meaning, and the intention of the individual who produces it. It answers the question: Why is the action carried out? According to Vallacher and Wegner (1985), low levels of identification are better suited to the achievement of long, difficult, or unusual behaviors whereas high levels are more suited to short, easy, usual behaviors. However, individuals with multiple identities for the same action tend to choose the one at the highest level. This trend is explained by the fact that “high levels provide the most comprehensive understanding of what they are doing” (Vallacher & Wegner, 2012, p.332).

A second, more recent explanation for this trend, refers to the social value that a high-level identity confers to the behavior and the person who carries it out (Mange et al., 2015). In line with the second explanation, Vallacher et al. (1992) observed that their study participants tended to identify their successes at a higher level than their failures. Kozak et al. (2006) observed that the actions of socially valued
individuals were identified at a high level, especially when these actions
were positive. Mange et al. (2015, Exp.1) used the *Behavioral Identification Form*, a scale developed to measure people’s tendency to identify actions at a high or low level (Vallacher & Wegner, 1989). In line with the self-presentation paradigm (Jellison & Green, 1981), the authors instructed participants to choose responses that would give a positive or negative image of themselves. In accordance with the assumption of normativity of the responses, the results revealed that participants who were instructed to give a positive image of themselves chose more high-level identities to account for the actions presented than when they were instructed to give a negative image, or even when they received no particular instructions.

Purpose of the present study

Meineri et al. (2015) suggested that the increased acceptance of a
request could be explained by the social value conferred on it by a high-
level identity. The two experiments presented below tested this
hypothesis. In addition, we wanted to compare different formulations of
the request based on both their content and form, which was not the case
in the previous studies by Meineri et al. (2015) and Flynn and Bohn
(2012). In those two studies, the authors compared a formulation that
induced a preliminary answer with a control formulation allowing no
previous answer. Therefore, the individuals in the control condition were
not confronted with a request for a favor or a service, but neither were
they confronted with any request that would involve them in the
dialogue.

EXPERIMENT 1

The first experiment aimed to encourage passers-by on the street to
answer a short questionnaire about the city. From a theoretical point of
view, it involved comparing the acceptance rates elicited by request
formulations relating to low and high-level identities. In addition, Flynn
and Bohn (2012) indicated that their participants were expecting
compensation for their participation, higher in the case of a prior request
than for a direct request. According to these authors, the participants'
feelings of being trapped explained their request for compensation. The
first experiment therefore attempted to measure the participants'
feelings following the request using a psychological discomfort measurement
scale (Norton et al., 2003).

Method

*Pretest action identities* A pretest, involving 19 students (10 men & 9 women, M<sub>age</sub> =24.11, SD= 6.74) recruited on the university campus, was conducted on four identities of the action "Respond to a questionnaire",
chosen following a brainstorming session. The questionnaire described the experimental situation, and listed four possible requests for a service in the following form: "Hello, I apologize for bothering you, could you please ..." followed by the tested identity: "Tick boxes? ", "Do me a service?", "Answer questions? ", "Do me a favor"? In accordance with the methodology developed by Wegner and Vallacher (1985) for each of the identities formulated, the task was to indicate to what extent it described the action well or badly on a 10-point scale, whereby 1: *Describes the action very badly* and 10: *Describes the action very well*.

A Varimax principal component analysis with data rotation revealed two factors that accounted for respectively 45.3% and 36.5% of total variance (KMO = .288, Barlett's sphericity test: *p* = .002). The first factor, named High-level identities, includes the items "Do me a service" and "Do me a favor" (*r* = .76, *p* < .001). The second factor, named Low-level identities, groups the "Tick boxes" and "Answer questions" items (*r* = .47, *p* < .001).

<table><caption>Table 1 Summary of the principal component analysis on the identities of the "Respond to a questionnaire on the street" action</caption><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>High-level identities</th><th>Low-level identities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>"Do me a favor"</td><td>.943</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Do something for me"</td><td>.923</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Tick boxes"</td><td></td><td>.856</td></tr><tr><td>"Answer questions"</td><td></td><td>.855</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Participants and procedure

The experiment was conducted on the streets of a pedestrian zone in a city of about 50,000 inhabitants in northwestern France by 15 female experimenters, who were social science students<fnref n="1" />. The final sample consisted of 672 individuals, including 274 men and 398 women (*M*<sub>age</sub> = 38.27 years, *SD* = 12.75). The respondents, walking alone, were approached by one of the 15 experimenters, whose average age was 20, and randomly distributed in one of the five conditions at the rate of one passerby in control condition C0 for two passersby in experimental

<footnote n="1">¹ The authors are grateful to Marie Bayoud, Cathy Bernard, Andréa Chevillard, Margaux Gontard, Romane Groult, Maëlle Guevel, Angélique Guiho, Léonie Gustin, Manon Lucas, Maëlle Martin, Charlène Monfort, Lucille Mouton, Julie Peuffier and Priscilla Poussin and Axelle Raithier for their participation.</footnote>
conditions C1 to C4. The first passerby encountered was solicited with reference to the script of condition 0, the next two with reference to the script of condition 1, the following two with reference to the script of condition 2 and so on, up to condition 4. In all conditions, the request started with: "Hello, I apologize for bothering you ...". In condition CO, the experimenter completed the request as follows: "I'm a student and I am doing a study on the city. The questionnaire takes about 15 minutes. Would you agree to answer it?" In conditions C1 to C4, the experimenter continued by partially formulating the request. In condition C1, she said, "Could you tick boxes?," in condition C2, "Could you do me a service?," in condition C3, "Could you answer questions?," in condition C4, "Could you do me a favor?". In conditions C1 to C4, when the participants had responded favorably to the prior request (e.g., "Yes") or in a neutral way (e.g., "It depends", "Why?", "Why should I?", "For what reason?", "How?"), the experimenter completed the request as follows: "I am a student and I'm doing a study on the city. The questionnaire lasts about 15 minutes. Would you agree to answer it?". The acceptance or refusal of the request was recorded and, where appropriate, the questionnaire was distributed. When the participants answered "no" directly, their answer was also recorded, and the dialogue was terminated. Participants were debriefed after the experiment and thanked for their participation.

## Material

The questionnaire, allegedly about the city, was designed to measure the feelings of respondents and the compensation they would like to receive in exchange for their participation, and to further identify the feelings behind it. To this end, the first six items in the questionnaire, which pretended to measure the mood of individuals before they expressed their opinion on the city, corresponded to the short scale measure of psychological discomfort developed by Norton et al. (2003). This scale, shorter and more sensitive than the scale originally developed by Elliot and Devine (1994), presents six adjectives: Happy, Bothered, Good, Uneasy, Optimistic, and Uncomfortable. Respondents were asked to express to what degree of agreement each adjective corresponded to their mood, on a 15-point scale in which 1 corresponded to Strongly disagree and 15 to Strongly agree. The next item measured the desired remuneration using the following wording: "If the participation in this study were paid, how much would you like to receive in euros in exchange for your participation?". Ten levels of remuneration were proposed ranging from 50 cents to 5 euros.

The dependent variables of the experiment were the following:

- The frequency of acceptance of the target request
- The frequency of unfavorable, favorable, and neutral prior responses in the experimental conditions.

- The level of psychological discomfort felt

- The desired amount of remuneration

We expected to observe:

H1: A significantly higher acceptance frequency of the target request in the sequence conditions of the request that calls for high-level identities compared to the conditions calling for low-level identities and the control condition.

H2a: A significantly higher frequency of favorable prior responses in the sequence conditions of the request that calls for high-level identities compared to the conditions calling for low-level identities.

H2b: A significantly lower frequency of unfavorable prior responses in the sequence conditions of the request that calls for high level identities compared to conditions calling for low-level identities.

H3: A significant relationship between the frequency of favorable prior responses and the frequency of acceptance of the target request.

H4: A high level of psychological discomfort and a desire for higher remuneration in the sequence conditions of the request that calls for high-level identities compared to the conditions calling for low-level identities and the control condition.

## Results

Two series of analyses were carried out. The first batch of analyses was specifically aimed at testing our hypotheses. It focused on action identities aggregated by level, low ("Tick boxes" and "Answer questions") and high ("Do me a service" and "Do me a favor"). The second batch of analyses sought to explore the differences arising from the specific identities of the action, in addition to their level of identification.

## Assumption test

*Acceptance rate of the target request* A log-linear analysis 3 (Type of request) X 2 (Gender) X 2 (Acceptance of the request) was carried out. The results revealed a main effect of the type of request ($\chi^2(2, N=672) = 11.11, p = .004; \omega = .09$). Participants who called for high-level identities (51.2% -153 / 299) accepted the request significantly more frequently than those calling for low-level identities (38.5% - 115/299) ($\chi^2(1, N=598) = 9.76, p = .002; \omega = .12$) and those requested classically (37.8% - 28/74) ($\chi^2(1, N=373) = 4.22, p = .04; \omega = .11$).

*Favorability of preliminary responses* A log-linear analysis 2 (Type of request) X 2 (Gender) X 3 (Preliminary response) was carried out. The results revealed a single main effect of the condition ($\chi^2(2, N=598) =$
26.11; *p* <.001; *ω* = .15). Breaking down the effect revealed that individuals solicited with reference to high-level identities produced significantly fewer negative prior responses (21.7% - 65/299) than those solicited with reference to low-level identities (37.1% - 111/299) (χ2 (1, N=598) = 17.03, *p* <.001; *ω* = .17) and gave significantly more favorable responses (28.1% - 84/299) than those solicited with reference to low-level identities (14.4% - 43/299) (χ2 (1, N=598) = 16.80, *p* <.001, *ω* = .17). The number of neutral responses, however, was the same in the two conditions (48.5% - 145/299 vs. 50.2% - 150/299, χ2 (1, N=598) = .17NS.)

*Favorability of preliminary responses and acceptance of the target request* A log-linear analysis 2 (Type of request) X 2 (Gender) X 2 (Preliminary response) X 2 (Acceptance of the request) was carried out. The results showed a main effect of the previous response (χ2 (1, N=422) = 33.83, *p* <.001, *ω* = .28). Thus, 83.5% (106/127) of the participants who had previously given a favorable response actually accepted the target request vs. 54.9% (162/295) of the participants who gave a neutral prior response. No other main effect or interaction was recorded.

*Affect and desire for remuneration* The six items of the psychological discomfort scale were introduced in a principal component factor analysis for their grouping. Varimax rotation PCR showed two factors (KMO = .738, Barlett's sphericity test: *p* <.001). The first factor of positive items ("Happy", "Good", "Optimistic") explained 48.46% of the

<table><caption>Table 2: Summary of the principal component analysis on items in the short psychological discomfort scale</caption><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>Positive affects<br>(Cronbach's<br>α=.81)</th><th>Negative affects<br>(Cronbach's<br>α=.71)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>"Happy"</td><td>.867</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Good"</td><td>.860</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Optimistic"</td><td>.782</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Bothered"</td><td></td><td>.841</td></tr><tr><td>"Uneasy"</td><td></td><td>.770</td></tr><tr><td>"Uncomfortable"</td><td></td><td>.727</td></tr></tbody></table>

total variance (Cronbach's alpha = .81). The second factor grouped the negative items ("Bothered", "Uneasy", and "Uncomfortable") and explained 20.54% of the total variance (Cronbach's alpha = .71).

A factorial ANOVA (3x2), including the condition and the gender of the respondents as independent variables, was performed on the positive affect score, on the negative affect score, and on the desired compensation. The results revealed no main effect or interaction effect of
any of the variables considered: Positive affect (respectively: Condition (F(2,290) = .11 ns); Gender (F(1,290) = .06 ns); Condition X Gender (F(2,290) = 1.82 ns); Negative affect (respectively: Condition (F(2,290) = .33NS); Gender (F(1,290) = 2.70 ns); (Condition X Gender (F(2,290) = 1.19 ns); and desired retribution (Condition (F(2,290) = 1.68 ns); Gender (F(1,290) = 1.18 ns); Condition X Gender (F(2,290) = 1.41 ns).

In addition, a factorial ANOVA (2x2x2) was performed on the previously measured variables but this time by integrating the identity condition low vs. high, the prior response neutral vs. favorable, and the gender of the respondents as independent variables. The results revealed a main effect of the prior (neutral vs. favorable) response on the overall score of negative affect (F(1,260) = 7.17, p = .008, ηp² = .03) and an interaction effect between the previous response and gender of respondents on the measurement of positive affects F(1,260) = 4.88, p =

<table><caption>Table 3: Summary of results of aggregated identities according to the level of identity in Experiment 1</caption><thead><tr><th>Conditions and type of prior response</th><th>Favorability of prior response rates</th><th>Accept. rates</th><th>Neg. Affects scores</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Control</td><td>-</td><td>37,8%</td><td>2.63 (2.58)</td></tr><tr><td>Low-level id.</td><td></td><td>38,5%</td><td>2.35 (1.94)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>14.4%</td><td>83.7%</td><td>3.08 (2.71)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>48.5%</td><td>54.5%</td><td>2.02 (1.35)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>37.1%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>High-level id.</td><td></td><td>51,2%</td><td>2.56 (2.20)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>28.1%</td><td>83.3%</td><td>2.77 (2.62)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>50.2%</td><td>55.3%</td><td>2.39 (1.76)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>21.7%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

.03; ηp² = .02). Regarding the main effect of the prior response, it appears that participants who had previously given a favorable response

## Exploratory analyses of specific identities

*Acceptance rate of the target request* A log-linear analysis 5 (Type of request) X 2 (Gender) X 2 (Acceptance of request) was carried out. The
results showed a main effect of the type of stress ($\chi^2$ (4, N=672) = 11.3, *p* = .023, *ω* = .07).

<table><caption>Table 4: Summary of the results of the specific identities of the action</caption><thead><tr><th>Conditions and type of prior response</th><th>Favorability of prior response rates</th><th>Accept. rates</th><th>Neg. Affects Score</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C1 “Tick boxes”</td><td></td><td>38%</td><td>2.00 (1.47)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>13.3%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>47.3%</td><td>85%</td><td>2.67 (1.84)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>39.3%</td><td>56.3%</td><td>1.73(1.20)</td></tr><tr><td>C2 “Do me a service”</td><td></td><td>50%</td><td>2.85 (2.58)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>26%</td><td>82.1%</td><td>3.05 (3.04)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>54%</td><td>53.1%</td><td>2.70 (2.21)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>20%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>C3 “Answer questions”</td><td></td><td>38.9%</td><td>2.70 (2.27)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>15.4%</td><td>82.6%</td><td>3.46 (3.31)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>49.7%</td><td>52.7%</td><td>2.33 (1.45)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>34.9%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>C4 “Do me a favor”</td><td></td><td>52.3%</td><td>2.29 (1.72)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>30.2%</td><td>84.4%</td><td>2.54 (2.22)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>46.3%</td><td>58%</td><td>2.06 (1.04)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>23.5%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

The two-by-two comparisons revealed that the participants solicited with reference to the identity "Do me a favor" (52.3% - 78/149) accept significantly more readily the target request than those solicited in the control condition (37.8% - 28/74) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=223) = 4.17, *p* = .04, *ω* = .14) and those solicited with reference to the identity "Tick boxes" (38% - 57/150) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=299) = 6.21, *p* = .01; *ω* = .14) and with reference to the identity "Answer questions" (38.9% - 58/149) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=298) = 5.41, *p* <.001; *ω* = .13). The participants solicited with reference to the identity "Do me a service" (50% - 75/150) were more likely to accept the request than those solicited with reference to the control condition (37.8% -
28/74) ($\chi^2$ (1, n = 224) = 2.95, p = .08, $\omega$ = .11) and significantly more than those solicited with reference to the "Tick boxes" identity (38% - 57/150) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=300) = 4.38, p = .04, $\omega$ = .12) and with reference to the "Answer questions" identity (38.9% - 58/299) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=298) = 3.71, p < .001; $\omega$ = .11). The other conditions were not significantly different.

*Affects and wishes for remuneration* A factorial ANOVA 5 (Conditions) x 2 (Gender of participants) performed on positive and negative affect scores and on the desire for remuneration presents no main nor interaction effect of variables. The results are summarized in Table 4.

## Discussion

The results globally support the hypothesis of an effect caused by the high vs. low level of identification referred to by the formulation. Sequential formulations that refer to a previous high level of identification increased the probability of accepting the request compared to sequential formulations that refer to a previous low level of identification or to a direct complete formulation. However, this first experiment presented a bias due to a confounded variable that we wished to control before discussing the results further. In our protocol, formulations referring to high-level identities systematically integrated the personal pronoun "me" in contrast to formulations referring to low-level identities ("Answer questions", "Tick boxes"). Although these personal pronouns are more likely to appear in descriptions of a high level of identification, they personify the request and may therefore have a determining effect on its acceptance. A second experiment was conducted to control this variable and extend the scope of the results.

## EXPERIMENT 2

The second experiment was designed to encourage passersby on the street to give money to a person so that he/she could take the bus. As before, it involved comparing the acceptance rates generated by the request formulations relating to low- and high-level identities, this time ensuring the total comparability of the formulation.

## Method

*Pretest action identities* Before the tests and as in the first study, a pretest was conducted on six identities of the action "to give money to someone in the street so he/she can take the bus ", identified during a brainstorming session. The pretest was conducted with 31 students (3 men and 26 women; M\_age = 21.93, SD = 2.73) recruited on the university campus. The questionnaire described an interaction between two individuals in the street and listed six possible formulations for the
request: "Hello, I apologize for bothering you, could you please ..." followed by the identity tested: "Do something for me"; "Give me some small change"; "Pay part of my bus ticket"; "Do me a service"; "Help me", and "Do me a favor". Following the first experiment discussion, we ensured that all the formulations personified the request, either by using the personal pronoun "me", or by specifying the address to the person. As before, the respondents' task was to indicate to what extent the identity described the action well or badly on a 10-point scale whereby 1 corresponds to "Describes the action very badly" to 10: "Describes the action very well".

A Varimax principal component analysis revealed two factors that accounted for respectively 54% and 23.6% of the total variance (KMO = .701; Barlett's sphericity test: *p* < .001). The first factor we named High-level identities includes the items "Help me", "Do something for me", "Do me a service", and "Do me a favor" (Cronbach's Alpha = .86). The second factor we named Low-level identities groups, containing the items "Pay part of my bus ticket" and "Give me some small change" (*r* = .36).

<table><caption>Table 5: Summary of the main component analysis of the identities of the action of "giving money to someone so they can take the bus"</caption><thead><tr><th>Items</th><th>High-level identities</th><th>Low-level identities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>"Help me"</td><td>.938</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Do something for me"</td><td>.848</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Do me a service"</td><td>.832</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Do me a favor"</td><td>.740</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Give me some small change"</td><td></td><td>.850</td></tr><tr><td>"Pay part of my bus ticket"</td><td></td><td>.687</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Participants and procedure

The experiment was carried out near a bus stop on the streets of a city of about 50,000 inhabitants in northwestern France by nine female experimenters<fnref n="2" /> who were psychology students. The sample consisted of

<footnote n="2">² The authors are grateful to Eva Charpentier, Céline Bebin, Marie-Charlène Dinasquet, Audrey Glot, Agathe Graignic, Ben Assani Dayane, Zalafati Abdallah, Fatinina Abdul-Khafar, Coralie Connilhere and Anaïs Cornille for their participation.</footnote>
445 individuals, including 159 men and 286 women ($M_{age}$ 39.73, $SD$ = 12.87).

The respondents, walking alone, were approached by one of the nine experimenters ($M_{age}$=20, $SD$ = 1.17) and randomly distributed in one of seven conditions at the rate of one passerby in control condition (C0) for two passersby in experimental conditions C1 to C6. The first passerby encountered was solicited with reference to the script of condition 0, the following two with reference to the script of condition 1, the following two with reference to the script of condition 2 and so on, up to condition 6. In all conditions, the request started with: "Hello, I apologize for bothering you ...". In condition CO, the experimenter formulated the complete request in the following way: "I have to take the bus and I don't have enough money; please could you give me 50 cents"? In conditions C1 to C6, the experimenter continued by partially formulating the request. In C1, she said, "Could you do something for me?", in C2: "Could you give me some small change? ", in C3: "Could you pay part of my bus ticket? ", in C4: "Could you do me a service? ", in C5: "Could you help me? ", in C6: "Could you do me a favor? ". When participants answered favorably "Yes", or in a neutral way "That depends", "Why?", "Why should I?", "For what reason?", "How?", or "How much?", the experimenter completed the request in the following way: "I have to take the bus and I don't have enough money, could you give me 50 cents? ". The acceptance or refusal of the request was recorded and if appropriate, the amount the passersby had contributed was recorded before being returned to them during the debriefing. When the participants answered "no" directly, their answer was also recorded and the dialogue ended.

The dependent variables were the same as before, except for those measured in the questionnaire, as were the operational assumptions. However, we made no assumptions about the amount to be given.

## Results

As before, analyses were doubled to test our hypotheses and to explore the statistical differences caused by the specific identities of the action, in addition to their level of identification.

*Assumptions test Acceptance rate of the target request* A log-linear analysis 3 (Type of request) X 2 (Gender) X 2 (Acceptance of the request) was carried out. The results showed a main effect of the type of request ($\chi^2$ (2, N= 445) = 27.51, *p* <.001; *ω* = .18) and a main effect of gender ($\chi^2$ (1, N=445) = 2.84, *p* =.09; *ω* = .08). The main effect of gender was in favor of women (47.9% - 137/286 vs. 39.6% - 63/159).
Breaking down the main effect of the type of request revealed that the participants solicited with reference to the high-level identities (54.6% - 149/273) accepted the request significantly more frequently than those solicited with reference to the low-level identities (28.5% - 39/137) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=410) = 25.05, *p* <.001; ¶ = .25) and those solicited conventionally (34.3% - 12/35) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=308) = 5.12, *p* = .02; ¶ = .13).

*Favorability of preliminary responses* A log-linear analysis 2 (Type of request) X 2 (Gender) X 3 (Preliminary response) was carried out. Results revealed an effect of gender ($\chi^2$ (2, N=410) = 8.45, *p* =.015; $\omega$ = .10) and an effect of the type of request ($\chi^2$ (2, N=410) = 54.57, *p* <.001; $\omega$ = .26). Regarding the main effect of gender, breaking down the analysis revealed that women produced significantly fewer negative prior responses than men (25.8% - 68/264 vs. 38.4% - 56/146) ($\chi^2$ (1, nW=410) = 7.07, *p* = .007; $\omega$ = .13) and significantly more favorable responses than men (24.2% - 64/264 vs. 15.8% - 23/146) ($\chi^2$ (1,N=410) = 4.05, *p* = .04; $\omega$ = .09). However, men (45.9% - 67/146) and women (50% - 121/264) produced equal numbers of neutral responses ($\chi^2$ (1, N=410) = 0.63NS).

Regarding the effect of the type of request, breaking down the analysis revealed that individuals solicited with reference to high-level identities produced significantly fewer negative prior responses (18.3% - 50/273) than those solicited with reference to low-level identities (54% - 74/137) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=410) = 55.10, *p* <.001; $\omega$ = .37). They produced significantly more neutral responses (55.7% - 152/273) than those solicited with reference to low-level identities (34.3% - 47/137) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=410) = 16.7, *p* <.001; $\omega$ = .20). Finally, they produced significantly more favorable responses (26% - 71/273) than those solicited with reference to low-level identities (11.7% - 16/137) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=410) = 11.20; *p* <.001, $\omega$ = .17).

*Favorability of preliminary responses and acceptance of the target request* A log-linear analysis 2 (Type of request) X 2 (Gender) X 2 (Preliminary response) X 2 (Acceptance of the request) was carried out. Results revealed a main effect of the previous response ($\chi^2$ (1, N=286) = 4.61, *p* =.032; $\omega$ = .12). Thus, 74.7% (65/87) of the participants who had previously given a favorable response actually accepted the target request vs. 61.8% (123/199) of the participants who had given a neutral prior response. No other main effect or interaction was observed.

*Amount of money given* The average amount given by the 200 participants was 52 cents (SD = .26). A factorial ANOVA 3 (Conditions) x 2 (Gender of participants) performed on the amount of the donation revealed tendentially a main effect of conditions (F(2,194) = 2.29, *p* = .10 $\eta p^2$ = .02). The participants in the control condition (M = .66, SD =
.45, n = 12) gave tendentially more than participants in the low-level identity condition (M = .50, SD = .18, n = 39) (p LSD = .06) and tendentially more than those in the high-level identity condition (M = .53, SD = .25, n = 149) (p LSD = .09).

A factorial ANOVA 2 (Conditions) x 2 (Favorability of the responses) X 2 (Gender of the respondents) of the amount of money given did not show any main or interaction effect of the variables considered. The results are summarized in Table 6.

<table><caption>Table 6: Summary of results of aggregated identities according to the level of identification</caption><thead><tr><th>Conditions and type of prior response</th><th>Favorability of prior response rates</th><th>Accept. rates</th><th>Mean of money donation €</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Control</td><td>-</td><td>34.3%</td><td>.66 (.45)</td></tr><tr><td>Low-level id.</td><td></td><td>28.5%</td><td>.50 (.18)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>11.7%</td><td>75%</td><td>.48 (.06)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>34.3%</td><td>57.4%</td><td>.51 (.21)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>54%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>High-level id.</td><td></td><td>54.6%</td><td>.53 (.25)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>26%</td><td>74.6%</td><td>.55 (.32)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>55.7%</td><td>63.2%</td><td>.51 (.20)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>18.3%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Exploratory analyses of specific identities

*Acceptance rate of the target request* A log linear analysis 7 (Type of request) X 2 (Type of participant) X 2 (Acceptance of the request) was performed. In addition to the gender effect observed in the previous analysis (χ2 (1, N=445) = 2.84, p = .09, □ = .07), the results showed a main effect of the type of request (χ2 (6, N=445) = 32.84, p = .001, □ = .11).

The two-by-two comparisons revealed that the participants solicited with reference to the identity "Do me a service" (64.3% - 45/70) accessed the target request significantly more frequently than those solicited in the control condition C0: 34.3% (12/35) (χ2 (1, N=105) = 8.46, p = .004, □□= .28), and those solicited with reference to identities "Pay part of my bus ticket" 31.9% (22/69) (χ2 (1, N=139) = 14.61, p
<.001; □ = .32), "Give me some small change" 25% (17/68) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=138) = 21.52, *p* <.001; □ = .39), and "Do something for me" 47.1% (32/68) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=138) = 4.15, *p* <.04; □ = .17). The participants solicited with reference to the identity "Help me" (55.2% - 37/67) accessed the request significantly more frequently than those requested with reference to the control condition C0: 34.3% (12/35) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=102) = 4.04, *p* = .04, □ = .19) and those solicited with reference to identities "Pay part of my bus ticket" 31.9% (22/69) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=136) = 7.54, *p* = .006; □□ = .24) and "Give me some small change" 25% (17/68) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=135) = 12.85, *p* <.001; □ = .31). The respondents solicited with reference to the identity "Do me a favor" (51.5% - 35/68) tendentially acceded to the request more frequently than those solicited with reference to the control condition C0: 34.3% (12/35) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=103) = 2.75, *p* = .09; □ = .16) and significantly more than those solicited with reference to identities "Pay part of my bus ticket" 31.9% (22/69) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=137) = 5.41, *p* = .02; □ = .20) and "Give me some small change" 25% (17/68) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=136) = 10.09, *p* = .001; □ = .27). Finally, the participants solicited with reference to the identity "Do something for me" (47.1% - 32/68) tendentially acceded to the request more frequently than those solicited with reference to the identity "Pay part of my bus ticket" 31.9% (22/69) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=137) = 3.30, *p* = .07, □ = .15) and significantly more than those solicited with reference to the identity "Give me some small change" 25% (17/68) ($\chi^2$ (1, N=136) = 7.18, *p* = .007; □ = .23). The other two-by-two comparisons revealed no significant differences or trends.

*Amount of money given* A factorial ANOVA 7 (Conditions) x 2 (Gender of participants) performed on the amount of money given revealed a main effect of the condition (*F*(6,186) = 2.15, *p* = .05 □*p*2 = .06). Participants in the control condition (*M* = .66, *SD* = .45, *n* = 12) gave significantly more than those in the "Do something for me" modality (*M* = .46, *SD* = .10, *n* = 32) (*p* LSD = .02) and tendentially more than those of the modalities "Give me some small change" (*M* = .48, *SD* = .07, *n* = 17) (*p* LSD = .06) and "Do me a service" (*M* = .50, *SD* = .26, *n* = 45) (*p* LSD = .06). Participants in the "Help me" modality (*M* = .63, *SD* = .34, N=37) give significantly more than those in the "Do something for me" modalities (*M* = .46; *SD* = .09, *n* = 32) (*p* LSD = .008), "Do me a service" (*M* = .50, *SD* = .26, *n* = 45) (*p* LSD = .03) and "Give me some small change" (*M* = .48; *SD* = .06, *n* = 17) (*p* LSD = .05) and tendentially more than those of the modality "Do me a favor" (*M* = .52, *SD* = .20, *n* = 35) (*p* LSD = .08). The results are summarized in Table 7.
<table><caption>Table 7: Summary of the results of the specific identities of the action</caption><thead><tr><th>Conditions &amp;<br>type of prior response</th><th>Favorability<br>of prior response<br>rates</th><th>Accept.<br>rates</th><th>Mean amount<br>given<br>€ (S.D.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C1 "Do Something for<br>me"</td><td></td><td>47.1%</td><td>.46 (.10)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>14.7%</td><td>60%</td><td>.48 (.08)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>61.8%</td><td>61.9%</td><td>.39 (.13)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>23.5%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>C2 "Give me some<br>small change"</td><td></td><td>25%</td><td>.48 (.07)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>5.9%</td><td>100%</td><td>.50 (.00)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>33.8%</td><td>56.5%</td><td>.47 (.07)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>60.3%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>C3 "Pay part of my bus<br>ticket"</td><td></td><td>31.9%</td><td>.52 (.23)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>17.4%</td><td>66.7%</td><td>.46 (.07)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>34.8%</td><td>58.3%</td><td>.55 (.28)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>47.8%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>C4 "Do me a service"</td><td></td><td>64.3%</td><td>.50 (.26)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>32.9%</td><td>87%</td><td>.54 € (.38)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>51.4%</td><td>69.4%</td><td>.47 € (.09)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>15.7%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>C5 "Help me"</td><td></td><td>55.2%</td><td>.63 (.34)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td>32.8%</td><td>77.3%</td><td>.62 (.38)</td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>50.7%</td><td>58.8%</td><td>.63 (.31)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>16.4%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>C6 "Do me a favor"</td><td></td><td>51.5%</td><td>.52 € (.20)</td></tr><tr><td>- Favorable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Neutral</td><td>23.5%</td><td>62.5%</td><td>.60 € (.32)</td></tr><tr><td>- Negative</td><td>58.8%</td><td>62.5%</td><td>.49 € (.13)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>17.6%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
GENERAL DISCUSSION

Based on previous research on the effect of prior request for a service (Meineri et al., 2015) or a favor (Flynn & Bohns, 2012), the aim of the present study was to test a more general interpretation using action identification theory (Wegner et Vallacher 1985). This led us to use different formulations of the request depending upon the level: low vs. high-level identities.

In accordance with hypothesis H1, the high-level identity conditions (Exp.1 and 2) produced significantly higher acceptance rates for the target request than those for low-level identity conditions, as well as those for control conditions. Prior high-level formulations, presumably because they are valuable, promote their acceptance and complicate their eventual rejection, prompting participants in this case to prefer a more neutral response (e.g., "It depends") or a request for complementary information (e.g., "How?").

In accordance with hypotheses H2 (a, b), the favorability levels of the preliminary responses were generally higher in the high-level identity condition than in the low-level identity condition (Exp.1 and 2); specifically, the favorable and negative response frequencies were respectively higher and lower in the high-level identity condition than in the low-level identity condition (Exp.1 and 2). Experiment 2 further revealed that prior neutral type responses were also more frequent in the high-level identity condition than in the low-level identity condition.

Concerning the process of influence at work, the results highlighted the determining character of the consistency and confirmed hypothesis H3. Acceptance of the final request was explained exclusively by the level of favorability of the prior response (favorable vs. neutral) and not by the modality of obtaining this prior response (Exp. 1 and 2) or by the interaction between the two variables. The individuals who freely gave a favorable answer to the incomplete wording of the request, whether referring to a low or high level of identification, were committed to maintaining it when the additional information was subsequently provided. Respectively 83.5% (Exp.1) and 74.7% (Exp.2) of previously successful respondents acceded to the target request compared to 54.9% (Exp.1) and 61.8% (Exp. 2) of those who gave a neutral answer. This result is consistent with what Howard (1990) observed with the foot-in-the-mouth paradigm.

In contrast to Flynn and Bohn (2012), we did not observe a differentiated wish for a counterpart according to the group condition of the participants (H4 - Exp.1). The item measuring the desire for remuneration did not reveal a significant difference, regardless of the comparisons made. Conversely, we did observe an effect, not of the condition but of the prior neutral or favorable response in the
experimental conditions, specifically on the level of negative affect. Participants who responded favorably to the prerequest and subsequently maintained it, indicated that they felt more negative affect than those who provided a neutral response before finally providing a favorable response once all the information was transmitted. Flynn and Bohn (2012) suggested that individuals may feel manipulated by the solicitation strategy employed and seek a counterpart to restore balance. This interpretation could be compared to the phenomenon of psychological reactance described by Brehm and Sensenig (1966). Related to cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), psychological reactance is described as a "motivational state directed toward the reestablishment of whatever freedom has been threatened or eliminated" (p.709). The counterpart demand mentioned by Flynn and Bohn (2012) could allow individuals who feel manipulated to recover their freedom.

By distinguishing the individuals according to their previous responses, we were able to separate those who were able to resist the influence from those who were unable to. The neutral responses of the type "It depends" or "How?" allow individuals to change their mind later without having to withdraw, or to decide only when they have all the information, which does not induce a favorable response. Thus, individuals who previously formulated a favorable response would be caught in the trap of consistency and could refuse the final request at the price of a breach of the consistency norms (Jouffre et al., 2001; Sénémeaud et al., 2016).

The psychological reactance of the participants may be expressed in the measurement of affect and not in the desired remuneration. The measurement of affect, nicknamed "cognitive dissonance thermometer" (Devine et al., 2004) was used in its short version (6 items), but also in its complete version (24 items), in a considerable number of studies of induced submission (Denizeau et al., 2009, Galinsky et al., 2000, Harmon-Jones, 2000), vicarious dissonance (Monin et al., 2004), and disagreement with others (Matz & Wood, 2005). A limitation of this measure, called explicit, has been pointed out by several authors: increasing the level of consciousness of the psychological discomfort of the individuals is hypothesized to block other forms of rationalization, usually a change in attitude (Elliot & Devine, 1994; Harmon-Jones et al., 1996; Lecrique, 2007; Rodriguez, 2015). In our protocol, the measurement of affect preceded the measurement of the desire for remuneration, which could explain the absence of results on the second measurement. In Experiment 2, participants' psychological discomfort was not measured, but the amount of money given was recorded. Although we did not find the difference found in Experiment 1 based on the preceding response, it appears that participants in the control
condition tend to give more money than those in the low-level identity and high-level identity conditions.

Experiment 2 completed the first by neutralizing the personification bias of the request. The results revealed that the systematic personification of the request by means of the personal pronoun "me" had no negative effect on the functioning of the paradigm and does not call the proposed interpretation into question. This personification could potentially have a deleterious effect when associated with low-level identities. The observation of the acceptance frequencies of the target request in the second study revealed a lower level than that observed in control conditions, whereas these were almost identical in the first study.

In addition to testing operational assumptions, exploratory analyses were performed to compare formulations independently of their level of identification. Although general differences were observed between the categories, other differences appeared in Experiment 2 within them in both the acceptance rates of the request and in the level of favorability of the previous response. Thus, in Experiment 2, the acceptance rate of the target request and the level of favorability of the highest prior response were those obtained using the wording "Do me a service." The acceptance rate differed significantly, apart from the control formulation, from the formulation "Do something for me" as well as the level of favorability. Similarly, the formulation "Give me some small change" had the same acceptance rate and the favorability level of the weakest prior response. It differed significantly from the wording "Pay part of my bus ticket". Although belonging to the same level of identification, it seems that the most effective high-level formulation and the least efficient low-level formulation are also the most frequently used. If this is the case, it is conceivable that individuals have developed a heuristic response to these types of requests (Cialdini, 2009; Langer et al., 1978; Scott Key et al., 2009), favorable or negative. This process could also help explain the results.

Some of the low-level formulations used (i.e., "Tick boxes," "Answer questions," "Pay part of my bus ticket") could be close to those used in the disrupt-then-reframe paradigm (Davis & Knowles, 1999). However, they produced the opposite effect. This paradigm, which also works sequentially, involves formulating a request in an unusual form. Classically, the amount of money is presented in cents and time in seconds (i.e., disrupt) before expressing the same element of information in its usual scale (dollars, minutes) accompanied by a favorable argument such as "it's a matter of" or "it's not long" (i.e., reframe). The disruption phase parasitizes the resistance of the individuals, making them more sensitive to the argument presented consecutively. In our studies, if the introduction is comparable to the disrupt-then-reframe paradigm,
individuals are led to deliver a first response immediately after the disruption. However, Knowles et al. (2001) pointed out that only the combination of the two phases produces the expected effect. Hence, it would be worth combining low-level identity and high-level identity, in a form such as "Please could you tick a few boxes, it would be a great help to me? "

In conclusion, the two experiments presented here attest to the behavioral effect of what we could name the foot-in-the-why paradigm. Although the situation seems trivial, it seems unlikely that a request previously mobilizing a high-level but negative identity (e.g., "Would you be willing to waste your time?") would produce the same results. The influence mechanism at work appears to correspond to the activation of two social norms successively. The first is the mutual assistance / social responsibility norm, activated by the identity conferring a social value to the request and bringing about a favorable or neutral prior response. The second is the consistency norm, bringing about a response consistent with the initial response. Finally, there is a need for studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the paradigm in a more commercial type of request for example, or for the benefit of the individuals solicited (e.g., health, environment). In addition, the effect of psychological reactance caused by the paradigm also needs to be investigated so as to identify its repercussions on the subsequent behavior of individuals, and the possible resistance they might develop with regard to this type of request.

REFERENCES

Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1963). Responsibility and dependency. *The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology*, *66*, 429-436.

Brehm, J. W., & Sensenig, J. (1966). Social influence as a function of attempted and implied usurpation of choice. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, *4*(6), 703–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023992

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). *Politeness: Some universals in language usage*. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

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*(5), 463-476.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.36.5.463

Davis, P. B., & Knowles, E. S. (1999). A disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, *71*, 192-199

Denizeau, M., Gosling, P., & Oberlé, D. (2009). The effects of order and delay on the use of three modes of dissonance reduction: Attitude change, trivialization and denial of responsability. *Anne Psychologique*, *109*(4), 629-654.
https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503309004035

Devine, P. G., Tauer, J. M., Barron, K. E., Elliot, A. J., & Vance, K. M. (2004). Moving beyond attitude change in the study of dissonance-related processes.
In *Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology.*
(pp. 297–323). https://doi.org/10.1037/10318-012

Dolinski, D. (2016). *Techniques of social influence: The psychology of gaining
compliance*. London, England: Routledge.

Elliot, A., & Devine, P. (1994). On the motivational significance of cognitive dissonance: dissonance as psychological discomfort. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67*(3), 382-394.

Flynn, F. J., & Bohns, V. K. (2012). Underestimating one's influence in help-seeking. In D. T. Kenrick, N. Goldstein, & S. L. Braver (Eds.), *Six degrees of social influence: Science, application, and the psychology of Robert Cialdini* (pp. 14–26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). *A theory of cognitive dissonance*. Evanston, Illinois: Row & Peterson, 1.

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

Galinsky, A. D., Stone, J., & Cooper, J. (2000). The reinstatement of dissonance and psychological discomfort following failed affirmations. *European Journal of Social Psychology, 30*(1), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<123::AID-EJSP981>3.0.CO;2-T

Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26*(12), 1490-1501. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002612004

Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70*(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.5

Heider, F. (1958). *The psychology of interpersonal relations*. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Howard, D. J. (1990). The Influence of Verbal Responses to Common Greetings on Compliance Behavior: The Foot- In- The- Mouth Effect. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20*(14), 1185-1196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00399.x

Jellison, J. M., & Green, J. (1981). A self-presentation approach to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40*(4), 643-649. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.4.643

Jouffre, S., Py, J. & Somat, A., (2001). Norme d'internalité, norme de consistance et clairvoyance normative. *Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 14*, 121-164.

Joule, R.-V., & Beauvois, J.-L. (1998). *La soumission librement consentie : Comment amener les gens à faire librement ce qu'ils doivent faire ?* Presses Universitaires de France

Kiesler, C. A. (1971). *The Psychology of Commitment*, NY Academic Press.

Knowles, E. S., Butler, S., & Linn, J.A. (2001). Increasing compliance by reducing resistance. In J.P. Forgas., & K.D. Williams (Eds.), *Social Influence:*
*Direct and Indirect processes* (pp. 41-60). Francis and Taylor: Psychology Press.

Kozak, M. N., Marsh, A. a, & Wegner, D. M. (2006). What do I think you're doing? Action identification and mind attribution. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90*(4), 543-555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.543

Lecrique, J.-M. (2007). *L'inconfort psychologique médiatise-t-il les effets de dissonance* ? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Paris, Nanterre.

Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36*(6), 635-642.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.6.635

Mange, J., Sénémeaud, C., & Somat, A. (2015). When the “why” makes you socially useful: Action identification and social value. *Swiss Journal of Psychology, 74*(4), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000162

Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88*(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.22

Meineri, S., Dupre, M., Vallee, B., & Gueguen, N. (2015). When a service request precedes the target request: another compliance without pressure technique? *Social Influence, 10*(4), 278-285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2015.1102762

Monin, B., Norton, M. I., Cooper, J., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Reacting to an assumed situation vs. conforming to an assumed reaction: The role of perceived speaker attitude in vicarious dissonance. *Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7*(3), 207-220.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046108

Norton, M. I., Cooper, J., Monin, B., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Vicarious dissonance: Attitude change from the inconsistency of others. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85*(1), 47-62.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.47

Rodriguez, L. (2015). *Auto-prophéties : un nouveau paradigme pour la théorie de la dissonance cognitive*. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence.

Scott Key, M., Edlund, J. E., Sagarin, B. J., & Bizer, G. Y. (2009). Individual differences in susceptibility to mindlessness. *Personality and Individual Differences, 46*(3), 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.001

Sénémeaud, C., Mange, J., & Somat, A. (2016). When attribution of consistency depends on group value: Social valorization of preference for consistency in equivalent and asymmetric intergroup relations. *International Review of Social Psychology, 29*(1), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.13

Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). *A theory of action identification*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: individual variation in action identification. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57*(4), 660-671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660

Vallacher, R., & Wegner, D. (2012). Action identification theory. In P. A. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins *Handbook of theories of social
*psychology: volume 1* (Vol. 1, pp. 327-348). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n17

Vallacher, R. R., Wegner, D. M., McMahan, S. C., Cotter, J., & Larsen, K. A. (1992). On Winning friends and influencing people: action identification and self-presentation success. *Social Cognition, 10*(3), 335-355. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1992.10.3.335

Author note The author(s) have received no funding for the present research. The author(s) have declared no potential conflicts of interest. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [SM], upon reasonable request.