Using the Need for Consistency to Create Greater Commitment

In my last post, I spoke about the status quo bias. Essentially, this is the bias that leads to our general tendency to get stuck repeating the same behaviors and decisions over time, rather than trying something new and different. Due to this bias for repetition, we are sometimes slow to adapt and change, missing out on opportunities and creating hardships as a result.

Nevertheless, maintaining the status quo also allows us to have some consistency in our lives. Furthermore, that consistency (in ourselves and others) forms the foundations for our shared commitments over time too. Thus, while repetition and maintaining the status quo can lead to problems in some areas, it can also benefit us by creating stability and consistency in others as well.

Given that, how can we apply this need for consistency and use it to our advantage? How can it best be applied to influence others too? Who is most likely to be persuaded into such commitments? Fortunately, a long history of research provides the answers...

General Research on Consistency and Commitment

The classic study of the use of consistency and commitment in social influence was conducted by Freedman and Frasier (1966). In that study, the pair found that a participant's agreement to a small request made them more likely to agree to a larger request later on as well. For example, individuals who agreed to answer a few initial questions about their household product usage were also more likely to agree to a later request for a two-hour household inventory of the products they actually had in their homes. Essentially, this pattern seemed to suggest that individuals want to remain consistent with their behavior, choices, and commitments over time. Freedman and Frasier (1966) called this process of using a small request to create larger commitments the Foot-In-The-Door (FITD) Technique.

More than three decades later, Burger (1999) conducted a comprehensive review of the research on the FITD technique up to that point in time. The main goal of the review was to determine the effectiveness of the technique, as well as to explore the underlying mechanisms for why it worked too. Through several analyses of the 56 studies included in the review, Burger (1999) found that the FITD technique had mixed results overall. Nevertheless, the studies found to be most effective tended to have some common features, including:

• The initial requests made of participants required more extensive involvement (e.g. elaborating on answers, writing responses, completing a longer task).
• Researchers allowed for a few days to pass between requests, so that participants did not get frustrated or insulted by the multiple requests at once.
• Procedures labeled participants who agreed with the initial request as "helpful" or "cooperative" too.
• Individuals were not paid or otherwise extrinsically rewarded for their agreement or participation.
• The second request appeared to be a continuation of the first (e.g. continuing a series of questions).

Taken together, Berger (1999) suggests these findings lend support to an overall self-perception effect going on in this FITD process. Essentially, individuals are using the perceptions of their own past behavior to figure out their current attitudes, commitments, and identity. Thus, when they agree to an initial request (especially when that request takes effort, gives them a positive identity, and does not feel frustrating or coerced), they come to see themselves as someone who "does that sort of thing" in general. Thus, in the future, they are more likely to remain consistent and committed to that attitude and identity by agreeing to additional requests that seem similar too.

Despite these generally positive findings and explanations, however, recent replications by Gamian-Wilk and Dolinski (2019) pose new questions and concerns. In both 2003 and 2013, the researchers replicated the original Freedman and Frasier (1966) study, with a group of both Polish and Ukrainian participants. Their results came back with two thought-provoking effects. First, in the 2003 study, the FITD procedure worked on the Ukrainian participants but did not influence the Polish participants. Second, in the 2013 follow-up, the same procedure failed to work with the Ukrainian participants too. Thus, the results suggest that even the best use of such consistency and commitment techniques may not be effective with all groups of people—and may change over time too.

What Type of Person Commits?

Given the above, it appears as though consistency does not influence later commitment for all individuals at all times. Additional research supports this conclusion. In fact, other studies suggest that a few individual traits can make a person more likely to remain consistent and committed to their past choices, including the following...

Identity Essential Reads

Does Owning Our Problems Really Help?

The Psychological Impacts of Donor Conception

A Clear and Helpful Self Concept: Research by Burger and Guadagno (2003) supports the notion that individuals who have a clear self-concept and see themselves as helpful are more likely to remain consistent and committed. Across three studies, individuals who were more certain that they possessed traits such as being charitable, unselfish, helpful, and compassionate were also more likely to be influenced by a FITD procedure. In contrast, those who were less certain about themselves as helpful were less likely to agree to a later and larger request—even when they agreed to participate in something small to start. Thus, individuals who are certain about their identity and view themselves as helpful tend to be more likely to be consistent and committed too.

An Individualistic Perspective: Research by Petrova, Cialdini, and Sills (2007) indicates that people who have an individualistic perspective may also be more influenced by FITD procedures. The team studied the effects of a consistency-commitment process on U.S. students and Asian international students (from China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam)—and measured the degree to which each participant was individualistic (relying on self) vs. collectivistic (consulting family and friends) in their decision making. The final results indicated that both group and individual differences were related to the degree to which participants held an individualistic perspective. Essentially then, those who primarily relied on themselves to make decisions alone were more likely to stay consistent with their commitments.

A High Preference for Consistency: A research review by Guadagno and Cialdini (2010) also found that individuals who score highly on the Preference for Consistency Scale are more likely to be influenced into commitments of varying kinds too. Such individuals tend to value being consistent and respond to future situations in ways that remain congruent with previous commitments. In contrast, those with a low preference for consistency are more unpredictable and spontaneous in their responses over time.

Using Consistency to Create Commitment

Taken together, the above results suggest that successful use of consistency to influence an individual's commitment requires consideration of two related factors. First, the characteristics of the individual's style of thinking need to be evaluated. Second, the ways in which they are persuaded to commit also need to be considered.

1) Looking at the individual, those most likely to commit will tend to be individuals who make their own decisions, have a high need for consistency, and possess a clear and helpful self-concept. Essentially, individuals who are already dependable, helpful, and considerate are also more likely to be persuaded into additional commitments. Therefore, when trying to get someone to commit to buying a product or volunteering for a cause, it may be helpful to focus on individuals who already have some belief or identity that is consistent with what you want to persuade them to do. Similarly, in a romantic context, look for a partner with a high degree of conscientiousness, as well as a general readiness to commit, in order to have the best success. In either case, these characteristics will make for the most consistent and committed relationships—whether that be as customers or lovers.

2) The most effective approach to gain commitment uses a series of related requests, which make the individual feel positive and helpful, and increase their involvement over time (without becoming frustrating). The general approach is to ask for a little at a time—and then work up from there accordingly. Given that, start with something easy. Perhaps a small purchase or donation, related to your larger business or cause. Similarly, a small initial request can make someone more likely to agree to a date too. In all of those cases, these initial investments into the relationship create positive feelings and connections—leading to greater commitment overall. In fact, such persuasion processes are often how professional matchmakers create feelings of commitment in romantic relationships too.

To end though, as a word of warning on this topic for genuinely trusting and considerate folks... Know when to break away from being consistent and to think clearly about what is best for you too. Remember, not everyone you feel commitment toward is committed back to you. So, be sure to see whether they are grateful and return your efforts before you commit and find yourself in an unfair relationship situation instead.

© 2020 by Jeremy S. Nicholson, M.A., M.S.W., Ph.D. All rights reserved.