396 Social Influence and Group Dynamics
people’s thought and behavior long after the tactic has run its
course. Freedman and Fraser (1966) themselves noted a par-
allel between their approach and the approach employed by
the Chinese military on U.S. prisoners of war captured during
the Korean War in the early 1950s. A prisoner, approached
individually, might be asked to indicate his agreement with
mild statements likeThe United States is not perfect.After the
prisoner agreed with such minor anti-American statements,
he might be asked by the interrogator to elaborate a little on
why the United States is not perfect. This, in turn, might be
followed by a request to make a list of the “problems with
America” he had identified, which he was expected to sign.
The Chinese might then incorporate the prisoner’s statement
in an anti-American broadcast. As a consequence of this
ratcheting up of an initially mild anti-American statement, a
number of prisoners came to label themselves as collabora-
tors and to act in ways that were consistent with this self-
image (cf. Schein, 1956).
Commitment underlies a related tactic known asthrowing
a lowball,which is routinely employed by salespeople to gain
the upper hand over customers in price negotiations (Cialdini,
2001). Automobile salespeople, for example, will seduce cus-
tomers into deciding on a particular car by offering it at a very
attractive price. To enhance the customer’s commitment to
the car, the salesperson might allow the customer to arrange
for bank financing or even take the car home overnight. But
just before the final papers are signed, something happens
that requires changing the price or other terms of the deal.
Perhaps the finance department has caught a calculation error
or the sales manager has disallowed the deal because the
company would lose money at that price. At this point, one
might think that the customer would back out of the deal—
after all, he or she has made a commitment to a particular ex-
change, not simply to a car. Many customers do not back out,
however, but rather accept the new terms and proceed with
the purchase. Apparently, in making the initial commitment,
the customer takes mental possession of the object and is re-
luctant to let it go (Burger & Petty, 1981; Cioffi & Garner,
1996).
Changing the terms of the deal without undermining the
target’s commitment is not limited to shady business prac-
tices. Indeed, lowball tactics underlie transactions having
nothing to do with economics, and can be used to gain peo-
ple’s cooperation to do things that center on prosocial con-
cerns rather than personal self-interest (e.g., Pallak, Cook, &
Sullivan, 1980). In an interesting application of the lowball
approach, Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, and Miller (1978)
played on college students’ potential commitment to psycho-
logical research. Students in Introductory Psychology were
contacted to see if they would agree to participate in a study
on “thinking processes” that began at 7:00 a.m. Because this
would entail waking up before the crack of dawn, few stu-
dents (24%) expressed willingness to participate in the study.
For another group of students, however, the investigators
threw a lowball by not mentioning the 7:00 a.m. element until
after the students had indicated their willingness to take part
in the study. A majority of the students (56%) did in fact agree
to participate, and noneof them backed out of this commit-
ment when informed of the starting time. After an individual
has committed to a course of action, new details associated
with the action—even aversive details that entail unantici-
pated sacrifice—can be added without undermining the psy-
chological foundations of the commitment.
Like the lowball tactic, the bait-and-switchtactic works
by first seducing people with an attractive offer. But whereas
the lowball approach changes the rules by which the ex-
change can be completed, the bait-and-switch tactic nixes the
exchange altogether, with the expectation that the target will
accept an alternative that is more advantageous to the influ-
ence agent. Car salespeople once again unwittingly have fur-
thered the cause of psychological science by their shrewd
application of this technique (Cialdini, 2001). They get the
customer to the showroom by advertising a car at a special
low price. Taking the time to visit the showroom constitutes a
tentative commitment to purchase a car. Upon arrival, the
customer learns that the advertised special is sold, or that be-
cause of its low price, the car doesn’t come with all the fea-
tures the customer wants. Because of his or her commitment
to purchase a car, however, the customer typically expresses
willingness to examine and purchase a more expensive
model—even though he or she wouldn’t have made the trip
to look at these models in the first place.SOCIAL COORDINATIONTo this point, social influence has been described as if it were
a one-way street. One person (the influence agent) has an
agenda that he or she wishes to impose upon another person
(the influence target). Although influence strategies certainly
are employed for purposes of control and manipulation, so-
cial influence broadly defined serves far loftier functions
in everyday life. Indeed, as noted at the outset, it is hard to
discuss any aspect of social relations without acceding a
prominent role to influence processes. Social influence is
what enables individuals to coordinate their opinions, moods,
evaluations, and behaviors at all levels of social reality, from
dyads to social groups to societies. The process of social
coordination is a thus a two-way street, with all parties to
the exchange influencing and receiving influence from one