concerned the show-up rate of those who volunteered; and, again, the re-
jection-then-retreat procedure was the more effective one (85 percent
vs. 50 percent).^15
A different experiment examined whether the rejection-then-retreat
sequence caused victims to feel so manipulated that they would refuse
any further requests. In this study, the targets were college students
who were each asked to give a pint of blood as part of the annual cam-
pus blood drive. One group of targets was first asked to give a pint of
blood every six weeks for a minimum of three years. The other targets
were asked only to give the single pint of blood. Those of both groups
who agreed to give a pint of blood and who later appeared at the blood
center were then asked if they would be willing to give their phone
numbers so they could be called upon to donate again in the future.
Nearly all the students who were about to give a pint of blood as a
result of the rejection-then-retreat technique agreed to donate again
later (84 percent), while less than half of the other students who ap-
peared at the blood center did so (43 percent). Even for future favors,
the rejection-then-retreat strategy proved superior.^16
Strangely enough, then, it seems that the rejection-then-retreat tactic
spurs people not only to agree to a desired request but actually to carry
out the request and, finally, to volunteer to perform further requests.
What could there be about the technique that makes people who have
been duped into compliance so bewilderingly likely to continue to
comply? For an answer, we might look at the requester’s act of conces-
sion, which is the heart of the procedure. We have already seen that as
long as it is not viewed to be a transparent trick, the concession will
likely stimulate a return concession. But what we have not yet examined
is a little-known pair of positive by-products of the act of concession:
feelings of greater responsibility for, and satisfaction with, the arrange-
ment. It is this set of sweet side effects that enables the technique to
move its victims to fulfill their agreements and to engage in further
such agreements.
The desirable side effects of making a concession during an interaction
with another person are nicely shown in studies of the way people
bargain with each other. One experiment, conducted by social psycho-
logists at UCLA, offers an especially apt demonstration.^17 A subject in
that study faced a “negotiation opponent” and was told to bargain with
the opponent concerning how to divide between themselves a certain
amount of money provided by the experimenters. The subject was also
informed that if no mutual agreement could be reached after a certain
period of bargaining, no one would get any money. Unknown to the
subjects, the opponent was really an experimental assistant who had
36 / Influence