The “But you are free of …” technique is a compliance procedure which solicits someone to comply with a request by simply telling him that he is free to accept or to refuse the request. This semantic evocation leads to increased compliance with the request. A new evaluation of the generality of this technique was tested in an experiment in which subjects received an anonymous electronic mail which asked them to consult the site of a humanitarian association for children. Analysis showed that, when the semantic evocation of freedom is included in the message, a higher compliance rate was observed than in a situation in which this evocation was omitted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownP.LivinsonS. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univer. Press.
2.
BurgerJ. (1986) Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277–283.
3.
CialdiniR.CacioppoJ.BassettR.MillerJ. (1978) Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463–476.
4.
CialdiniR.SchroederD. (1976) Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 599–604.
5.
CialdiniR.VincentJ.LewisS.CatalanJ.WheelerD.DarbyLee B. (1975) Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.
6.
EnzleM.HarveyM. (1982) Rhetorical request for help. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 172–176.
7.
FreedmanJ.FraserS. (1966) Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.
8.
GouldnerA. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
9.
GuéguenN.PascualA. (2000) Evocation of freedom and compliance: The “but you are free of …” technique. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 264–270.
10.
GuéguenN.PascualA. (in press) Reciprocity rules and compliance to a request: An experimental evaluation in a natural setting. Psychology and Education.
11.
HowardD. (1990) The influence of verbal responses to common greetings on compliance behavior: The foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1185–1196.
12.
JouleR-V.GouillouxF.WeberF. (1989) The lure: A new compliance procedure. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 741–749.
13.
KieslerC. (1971) The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic Press.
14.
PascualA.GuéguenN. (2002) La technique du “Vous êtes libre de …”: Induction d'un sentiment de liberté et soumission à une requête ou le paradoxe d'une liberté manipulatrice. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15, 51–80.
15.
ReevesR.MacoliniR.MartinR. (1987) Legitimizing paltry contributions: On-the-spot vs mad-in-requests. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 731–738.
16.
ReevesR.SaucerP. (1993) A test of commitment in legitimizing paltry contributions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 537–544.
17.
ReganD. (1971) Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627–639.
18.
TakemuraK. (1993) The effect of interpersonal sentiments on behavioral intention of helping behavior among Japanese students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 675–681.
