 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Effects of the "Even a Few Minutes Would Help"
Strategy, Perspective Taking, and Empathic Concern on
the Successful Recruiting of Volunteers On Campus

presented by

Junko Takada

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment .
of the requirements for j

Communication-Urban Studie

I

I
Master 5 degree in

 

Enk

Major professor

 

Dateﬂj 1: m

0—7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

DATE Egg DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65—p. 15

 

THE EFFECTS OF THE “EVEN A FEW MINUTES WOULD HELP” STRATEGY,
PERSPECTIVE TAKING, AND EMPATHIC CONCERN
ON THE SUCCESSFUL RECRUITING OF VOLUNTEERS ON CAMPUS
By

JUNKO TAKADA

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication-Urban Studies

2002

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF THE “EVEN A FEW MINUTES WOULD HELP” STRATEGY,
PERSPECTIVE TAKING, AND EMPATHIC CONCERN
ON THE SUCCESSFUL RECRUITING OF VOLUNTEERS ON CAMPUS
By
JUNKO TAKADA
The purpose of the study was to test the effectiveness of a strategy for getting

more university students involved in volunteering activities by adding the sentence, “even
an hour would help.” In addition, the relationship between the even-a-few-minutes-
would-help strategy and empathy was examined when recruiting volunteers on campus.
One hundred and seven students who were walking on the university campus during
school hours were approached. Adding one sentence, “Even a few minutes would help”
increased the compliance rate by 9.3 % compared to the request without that sentence.
The increase was not statistically signiﬁcant, however, the compliance rate was in the
predicted direction. The data suggested that empathy moderated the prediction of
compliance to volunteer. However, the mechanism of the moderator is more complicated
than anticipated. None of the people who had low empathic concern complied with the
request, and all the people who complied with the request had high empathic concern. Of
those, perspective taking moderated the effects of the even-a-few-minutes-would-help
strategy when a person decided to volunteer on campus. “Even a few minutes would

help” was more effective when people had high perspective taking as opposed to those

who had low perspective taking.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... v
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 3
Sequential Request Strategies ...................................................................................... 3
Even a Penny Helps ......................................................................................................... 8
Empathy ........................................................................................................................... 1 1
Method ............................................................................................................................. 20
Participants .................................................................................................................. 20
Design .......................................................................................................................... 20
Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 20
Measurement ................................................................................................................ 21
Results .............................................................................................................................. 22
Hypothesis 1 ................................................................................................................. 23
Model Testing .............................................................................................................. 24
Volunteering Time ....................................................................................................... 28
Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 29
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................... 34
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 35

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Two Rival Models ............................................................................................ 19

Table 2. Percentage of Subjects Compliance
in the Control and the Treatment Groups ......................................................... 23

Table 3. Correlations Among Perspective Taking,

Empathic Concern and Compliance .................................................................. 24
Table 4. Correlations in Control Group .......................................................................... 25
Table 5. Correlations in Treatment Group ...................................................................... 26
Table 6. The New Model ................................................................................................ 28

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. An Interaction Between Request Type and Perspective Taking with
Compliance as the Dependent Variable ........................................................... 27

Introduction

Even subtle differences in wording can result in surprisingly large differences in
the probability of successfully gaining another’s compliance (Langer, Arthur, & Benzion,
1978). For instance, Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) examined the effectiveness of a small
request in the donation context by adding one sentence, “Even a penny helps.” They
showed that a minimal request was hard to refuse and that this technique did not diminish
the amount of money that people donated. Perhaps a similar strategy would be effective
in recruiting settings for volunteers on campus.

Tackling social problems by participating as a volunteer plays an important role in
this society. Every year millions of Americans volunteer at more than one million
nonproﬁt organizations throughout the United States (Lawson, 1998). In fact, almost half
of the adult population volunteers for nonproﬁt organizations each year (Fuchsberg,
1990). Further, a substantial proportion of nonproﬁt groups rely on volunteers to meet
their objectives. Historically, volunteers were the ﬁrst detectors of existing community
needs and they chose to spend their own time involved in their communities (Ellis, 1986).

A variety of volunteer recruiting campaigns including Ret. General Powell’s call
to action and Oprah’s Angel Network try to make a difference in the communities
throughout the country. Although volunteering is becoming popular among the retired,
the frequency of university student’s participation remains relatively low (Michigan
Nonproﬁt Association, 1999).

The purpose of this research is to test the effectiveness of a strategy for getting
more university students involved in volunteering activities by replicating the Cialdini

and Schroeder (1976) study with a volunteering request. In addition, the notion of

perspective taking and empathic concern should be taken into consideration as potential
independent or moderating variables. Perspective taking is deﬁned as “the ability of an
individual to adopt the viewpoint of another” (Stiff, Dillard, Somera, Kim, & Sleight,
1988, p.199). Empathic concern is deﬁned as “a general concern and regard for the
welfare of others” (Stiff et al., 1988, p. 199). Eisenberg and Miller (1987) discovered a
modest, but signiﬁcant, association between perspective-taking constructs and helping.

In the ﬁrst section of this paper, sequential requests including the foot-in-the-door
(FITD), the door-in-the-face (DITF), low-ball, that’s not all, and even-a-penny—helps
strategies are reviewed. The even-a-penny-helps strategy, however, is the primary focus
here. Then, perspective taking and empathic concern are considered as important
variables to help us to understand the dynamics of recruiting volunteers.

In order to replicate the study of Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) in the context of
recruiting volunteers on campus, the sentence needs to be modiﬁed into, “even a few
minutes would help.” Half of participants are simply asked to volunteer, and the rest of
them hear “even a few minutes would help” in addition to the standard request. Also all
of the participants are asked to ﬁll out a questionnaire containing a measure of empathy
including perspective taking and empathic concern. This study predicts a signiﬁcant
increase in the frequency of volunteering by adding, “even a few minutes would help.” It
is also predicted that perspective taking and empathic concern will be related to

volunteering, although the exact nature of the relationship is unclear.

Literature Review

Sequential Request Strategies

A large number of research studies have tested the effectiveness of various
sequential request compliance-gaining strategies. Studies testing speciﬁc strategies such
as the foot-in-the-door, the door-in-the-face, low ball, that’s not all, and even-a-penny-
helps are plentiful. The literature concerning the even-a-penny—helps strategy is paid
close attention. The literature on these strategies is summarized brieﬂy below.

The foot-in-the-door technique was introduced by Freedman and Fraser (1966),
and involves an initial small request that increases the likelihood of compliance with a
subsequent larger request. The subsequent larger request was more likely to be accepted
when the request was made by the same or different person, and even with different kinds
of requests. The fundamental principal is that once someone has agreed to any action, no
matter how small it is, he or she tends to feel more involved than before. Therefore, once
a person agrees to a request, one’s attitude may change. The change in attitude directs a
person to comply with any aspect of the situation or with the whole business (Freedman
& Fraser, 1966). The basic idea is that the change in attitude may not be toward any
particular issue or person or activity, but may be toward activity or compliance in general.

Eisenberg, Cialdini, McCreath, and Shell (1987) tested the FITD technique on
children and showed that the FITD appeared effective among the second and ﬁfth graders.
However, the FITD was not effective among children before the age of 7, and these
children did not seem to evaluate their current behavior in light of past behavior. Further,
the more the children perceived their prior behavior as predictive of their future behaviors,

the more the F ITD effect was inﬂuenced by preference for consistency in behavior.

Speciﬁcally, children’s preference for consistency seemed to inﬂuence the effect of the
FITD technique. As this study showed, the notion of commitment and consistency
appears to be one of the reasons why this technique works. Once human beings take a
stand, they will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently
with that commitment (Cialdini, 2001 ). When people comply with a small request at ﬁrst,
then they feel obligated to comply with the second larger request as well.

The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique (Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan,
Wheeler, & Darby, 1975) is the opposite of the foot-in-the-door (F ITD) technique. In
this technique, an extreme request is made ﬁrst, which a target is most likely to turn down,
then a smaller request is proposed subsequently. A target regards the second request as a
concession and feels inclined to comply with a second request. This technique is involved
in the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). I

For instance, Brownstein and Katzev (1985) found that individuals who were
simply asked for a $ 1 contribution to a museum were less likely to comply with the
target request, as compared to people who were ﬁrst asked for a $5 contribution. Cialdini
et al. (1975) contend that the reduction in request size in the DITF technique is
considered as a concession on the part of the requestor. People feel obligated to make
concessions to those who make concessions to them (Cialdini et al., 1975).

It is also important to note that several meta-analyses have found results
consistent with the effectiveness of both the FIT D and the DITF strategies. First, Cantrill
and Seibold (1986) found results consistent with the relative effectiveness of the FITD
and the DITF techniques compared simply to making the second request alone and that

both sequences increase the possibility of compliance to approximately the same degree.

Perceptual contrast processes were predicted as an important factor, in which the initial
request is employed as an anchor against either to assimilate or contrast to further
requests. The study, however, showed that perceptual contrast processes did not account
for the sequential request efﬁcacy.

The meta-analysis of Dillard, Hunter, and Burgoon, (1984) concluded that the
F ITD and the DITF techniques are effective in increasing the likelihood of compliance to
requests that are prosocial in nature. Although they sought a common theoretical
explanation for why the F ITD and the DITF are effective, they failed to propose one.
They examined the applicability of a reciprocal concession in FITD and of a self-
perception in DITF. They found that a reciprocal concession is only relevant to DITF,
and a self-perception is only applicable to the FITD.

Despite its effectiveness, some have argued that the DITF lacks a consistently
supported theoretical explanation. In order to ﬁll the gap, many researchers have focused
on other reasons why the DITF enhances compliance (e.g., Abrahams & Bell, 1994; Bell,
Abrahams, Clark, & Schlatter, 1996; Reeves, Baker, Boyd, & Cialdini, 1991; Tusing &
Dillard, 2000).

Of those studies, guilt has been tested to see whether it could be an explanation of
the effectiveness of the DITF strategy (O’Keefe, 1999, 2000; O’Keefe & Figge, 1997,
1999). O’Keefe and Figge (1997) found that refusing the ﬁrst request creates guilt and
accepting the second request reduces guilt. Therefore, guilt seemed to play a role in
examining the DITF technique. O’Keefe and Figge (1999) conducted another study to
conﬁrm the role of guilt as a moderator. They found that refusing a request from a

prosocial organization creates more guilt than a request from a for-proﬁt organization.

Although they expected to ﬁnd a reduction in the amount of guilt feelings from people
who complied with the second request, no signiﬁcant difference of guilt reduction
between people who rejected the initial large request and accepted the second small
request, and people who denied both requests was evident. Based on these ﬁndings,
O’Keefe and Figge (1999) shifted their focus from actual guilt feelings to anticipated
guilt feelings. Then, they found that people are more likely to comply with the second
smaller request in order to reduce the additional guilt that is expected to occur if they turn
the second offer down (O’Keefe & Figge, 1999). Therefore, anticipated guilt seems to
play an important role in examining the effectiveness of the DITF technique.

The low-ball technique (Cialdini, Cacioppo, Basset, & Miller, 1978) is another
sequential strategy. Individuals are asked initially to make a commitment to a request
and then to maintain their pledge when this request is made more costly. For instance, a
museum fundraising study found that subjects ﬁrst asked to contribute 75 cents and then
increasing this amount by 25 cents to support the children’s program was a more
effective way to raising money for the museum than the DITF technique (Brownstein &
Katzev, 1985). Katzev and Brownstein (1988) also tested the effect of knowledge of
compliance techniques on subsequent behavior. The results failed to show signiﬁcant
differences between those who knew of the techniques and who did not.

As with the F ITD, the low-ball strategy is also thought to reﬂect the notion of
commitment and consistency (Cialdini, 2001). People are asked to make commitments in
the ﬁrst place. Commitment decisions make people feel pressure to comply with the
subsequent requests. Therefore, once people committed to pay 75 cents, they continued

to pay even if the fee was increased.

Burger (1986) examined the that’s-not-all technique, in which a salesperson
proposes a product and a price but does not allow the buyer to respond immediately. A
few seconds later, the buyer is told, “That’s not all” and an additional small product that
goes along with the larger item is included in the deal. Alternatively, the buyer could be
told, “just for you” or “today only” then the price is reduced from the original one. The
seller intended to sell the items together or at the lower price all along. The seller,
however, proposes the higher price or single item ﬁrst. Burger (1986) reported several
studies showing the effectiveness of this procedure in comparison to the message without
containing the that’s-not-all technique.

The norm of reciprocity and altering an anchor point were considered as
explanations for the effectiveness of the that’s-not-all strategy. As with the DITF
strategy, the that’s-not-all technique is thought to work, in part, for the same reason. The
seller proposes higher price or single item ﬁrst, and next an offer is proposed with a
lower price or additional products. In this way, a target regards the second request as a
concession and he or she is more likely to comply with a second request.

The foot-in-the-door, the door-in-the-face, low ball and that’s not all strategies were
reviewed. All strategies were more effective in gaining compliance than a direct request.

However, the focus of this study is on applying the even a penny helps strategy.

Even a penny helps

Numerous studies have demonstrated that people are more willing to comply with
a small request than a larger one (e. g., Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976; Freedman & Fraser,
1966). Small requests are thought to yield higher compliance rates compared to large
requests because respondents’ costs are smaller and it is easier for a target person to say
yes. At the same time, people may ﬁnd it difﬁcult to say no for small requests (Cialdini
& Schroeder, 1976). Thus, by legitimizing a small request, people are more likely to
donate and the amount of donated money does not shrink (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976).

Speciﬁcally, Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) sought to increase the ﬁ‘equency of
monetary contributions to the American Cancer Society, by adding the sentence, “even a
penny will help.” Their results showed that asking a small favor reduces the probability
of rejection as making a target feel comfortable to donate a penny is more effective and
efﬁcient than simply requesting favors.

Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) conducted a door-to-door solicitation for charity to
examine the effectiveness of a small request. In Experiment 1, pairs of experimenters, a
male and a female, approached a middle-income suburban house and requested funds for
the American Cancer Society. A solicitor who was the same sex as the target person said,
“I’m collecting money for the American Cancer Society.” Then for half of the cases (i.e.,
the control group), the solicitor said, “Would you be willing to help by giving a
donation?” In the rest of the cases, the solicitor added one more sentence after that, “Even
a penny helps.” The results showed that the frequency of donations was signiﬁcantly

increased by adding the sentence, “Even a penny will help” without decreasing the size of

the donations. As a result, 28.6% of the control subjects contributed, whereas 50% of the
even-a—penny subjects donated.

Experiment 2 was conducted in the similar suburban middle-class neighbors with
different pairs of experimenters. The solicitor began with the same sentence as in the
experiment 1, “I’m collecting money for the American Cancer Society.” In the control
condition, the solicitor said, “We’ve already received some contributions, and I wonder if
you would be willing to help by giving a donation.” In the even-a-penny-helps condition,
the solicitor said, “Even a penny will help.” In the even-a-dollar-helps condition, the
solicitor said, “Even a dollar will help.” In the social legitimization condition, the
solicitor said, “We’ve already received some contributions, ranging from a penny on up,
and I wonder if you would be willing to help by giving a donation.”

The results showed that social legitimization condition received donations 64.5%
of the time, the even-a—penny-helps condition yielded 58.1% compliance, the control
condition was 32.2%, and the even-a-dollar-helps condition produced the lowest
compliance rate, 19.35%. Thus, experiment 2 replicated the results of experiment 1 and
found that social legitimization is as effective as the sentence of even a penny helps.
There was ambiguity in the even-a-penny-helps condition in that people could perceive
that a penny was a legitimate donation, and at the same time people might assmne that
the charity agency was badly lacking donations. By saying, “We’ve already received
contributions ranging ﬁ'om a penny on up,” a penny donation was justiﬁed through the
information that others had already given only a penny. At the same time, the perception
that the charity agency was seriously short of funds should also be reduced. Consistent

with this, the combination of the even-a—penny-helps and social legitimization conditions

were signiﬁcantly more effective compared to the combination of the control and even-a-
dollar conditions.

Reingen (1978) studied the effectiveness of various compliance induction
techniques in a fund-raising context as well. In the ﬁrst condition (i.e., the control group),
subjects were asked the standard request for a donation as follows; “as part of our annual
fund-raising drives, I’m collecting money for the Heart Association. Would you be
willing to help by giving a single donation?” In the second condition, a small favor (to
answer four questions concerning the Heart Association) were asked ﬁrst, then those who
agreed to answer the questions were asked the standard request for a donation. This
condition followed the foot-in—the—door technique. In the third, the standard request was
followed by the sentence, “Even a penny helps.” In the fourth, the sentence, “Even a
penny helps” was added to the second condition to combine the even-a-penny condition
with the F ITD strategy. The result showed that the third case, Which included “even a
penny helps,” achieved the highest compliance rate. The combination of FITD and even-
a-penny-helps yielded the second highest compliance rates, followed by the FITD only
and control message respectively. Simply adding one sentence to the request, “even a
penny helps” signiﬁcantly increased compliance rate compared to control group and
other two cases, both of which employed the FITD technique.

Weyant (1984) replicated Cialdini and Schroeder’s study (1976) by comparing
three different sentences: “people like you”, “people in neighborhoods like this are likely
to contribute” ,and “any amount will help.” The results showed that the even-a-penny

condition received a higher frequency of donations and the greatest average donation size

10

’9 6‘

than the “neighborhood like this”, “any amount , people like you” and control group
conditions.

Thus, three studies show that by adding only one sentence, “even a penny helps,”
the effectiveness of collecting money is considerably improved. Further, the literature
suggests that “even a penny helps” may be more effective than alternatives such as foot-
in-the-door or social proof. However, these studies are only employed in the context of
monetary donations to charity. It is worthwhile to replicate these studies in the recruiting
volunteers’ setting.

Empathy

Empathy is considered to be one of the most important predictors of why some
people are more likely to help others (Davis, 1994). Empathy is also considered to be
one of the catalysts that lead people to perform prosocial behavior (Stiff et al., 1988). For
instance, Rogers (1957) contended that empathy was a “necesSary and sufﬁcient
condition for therapeutic personality change” (p.99).

Empathy is believed to have three dimensions; perspective taking, emotional
contagion, and empathic concern (Stiff et al., 1988). Perspective taking is the ability of
an individual to understand an other’s viewpoint (Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 197 8;
Davis, 1980, 1983; Detsch & Madle, 1975; Feshbach, 1975; Krebs, 1975). Emotional
contagion is an affective aspect of empathy, and it is created when one person
experiences an emotional response parallel to and as the result of observing another
person’s actual or anticipated display of emotion (Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978;
Davis, 1980, 1983; Deutsh & Madle, 1975; Feshbach, 1975). Empathic concern is also

an affective component (Davis, 1980, 1983). Empathic concern has two characteristics.

11

First of all, it involves “a general concern and regard for the welfare of others” (Stiff et
al., 1988, p. 199). Secondly, the assumption is “the stipulation that the affect is not
parallel to that of the target person” (Stiff et al., 1988, p. 199). In emotional contagion,
the emotion corresponds to some extent with the other’s emotion. However, empathic
concern assumes that emotional feelings of the target and of the perceiver differ.

Several studies indicated that higher perspective taking increases the likelihood of
helping (Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Dovido, Allen, & Schroeder, 1990; Shelton, &
Rogers, 1981; Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989; Toi, & Batson, 1982). Coke, Batson,
and McDavis (1978) introduced a two-stage model of the empathic mediation of helping.
This model posits that taking the perspective of another in need increases empathic
emotion, which, in turn, will increase motivation to help or protect another.

Similarly, Stiff et al. (1988) conducted two studies examining the relationships
among different dimensions of empathy, communication, and prosocial behavior. Their
results were consistent with a model specifying that perspective taking leads to empathic
concern which, in turn, inﬂuences emotional contagion, communicative responsiveness,
and particular prosocial behaviors, including volunteering and comforting. In this model,
perspective taking is the ﬁrst step to process empathy. Perspective taking leads to
empathic concern and empathic concern leads to prosocial activities. Thus, both
perspective taking and empathic concern should be measured.

When a person feels empathy, one is more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors.
More importantly, the empathy process creates multiple outcomes. Some results stem
from simply caring about others (empathic concern), while others are a ﬁmction of both

empathic concern and emotional contagion. Empathic concern has been found to be

12

positively associated with prosocial behavior, while emotional contagion can reduce
prosocial outcomes (Stiff et al., 1988). For example, imagine an undergraduate class is
recruited to participate as volunteers for orientation programs for new students. Some
students may think how grateful they would be if they were helped by volunteers
(perspective taking) and some of them may feel that they need to do something for them
(empathic concern). These students should be more likely to volunteer. Some of them,
however, may feel that they do not want to think about the insecure feelings that the
people in the program might have (emotional contagion) and they would not participate
as volunteers for orientation programs. Thus, empathic concern may facilitate prosocial
behavior while emotional contagion may inhibit it.

Being a volunteer is considered a prosocial activity. Since many studies have
supported the relationship between empathy and prosocial activities (e.g., volunteering),
perspective taking and empathic concern need to be investigated in this study.
Speciﬁcally, it is important to examine whether perspective taking and empathic concern
play an independent role or they play a moderating role in the even-a-penny-helps
technique. If perspective taking and the even-a-penny-helps technique play independent
roles, the independent main effects for both the even-a-penny-helps strategy and
perspective taking on the probability of compliance would be observed. Two main
effects are expected, but no interaction effects are in this model. On the other hand,
empathic concern may be a moderating variable in the effectiveness of even-a-penny-
helps technique. In this case, an interaction occurs between the even-a-penny-helps

technique and empathic concern.

13

The two-process model and the moderator model will help us to understand the
roles of the even-a-penny—helps technique and empathy in recruiting volunteers. If an
interaction is present between an even-a-penny-helps technique and empathic concern,
the moderating model will help to specify the conditions when the even-a-penny-helps
technique is effective. If there is no interaction, perspective taking is independent from
the even-a-penny-helps technique and perspective taking independently inﬂuences
compliance. Thus, when recruiting volunteers on campus, perspective taking and
empathic concern need to be included to understand the mechanism of how these
inﬂuence the effectiveness of the even-a-penny-helps technique.

Hypothesis

The “even a penny helps” study has been replicated several times, but only in
charity drive contexts. Thus, this technique should be investigated in other domains to
see if its effectiveness generalizes. The fundamental assumptiOn of the even-a-penny-
helps strategy is that people are more likely to comply with a small request. When a
target person encounters an extremely small request, he or she simply cannot come up
with an excuse for denying the request. First of all, the request is so small that the target’s
cost is low, and a target can easily comply with a request. Second, such small requests
make it difﬁcult for a target to reﬁise. Simply adding one sentence, “even a penny
helps,” apparently provides justiﬁcation for a target, because he or she does not have to
worry about being considered cheap by donating a penny since it was vocalized. People
also seem to feel anticipated guilt for refusing a request (O’Keefe & Figge, 1999).

This study focuses on recruiting students for volunteering activities. By

modifying the sentence into “Even a few minutes would help,” a study of recruiting

l4

volunteers may derive the same kind of results as Cialdini and Schroeder did (1976). A
request, “even a few minutes would help,” is so small that a target will feel obligated to
say yes and harder to say no. Therefore it is hypothesized that:

H1: Targets are more likely to comply with a request when the sentence “Even a
few minutes would help” is added in recruiting volunteers on campus than when the
request is made absent this phrase.

Two Rival Models

A number of studies have shown that empathy enhances the likelihood of
prosocial activities. Volunteering activities are considered to be prosocial and their
importance is well understood in society. Empathy may play an important role in
volunteering activities (i.e., prosocial behaviors) and enhance our understanding of the
process of compliance. In order to reveal the relationship between the “even a few
minutes would help” study and empathy, two rival models are proposed; the two-process
model and the moderator model.

In the two-process model, empathy and an even-a-few-minutes-would-help
condition are independent predictors of volunteering. That is, in both an even-a-few-
minutes-would-help condition and a direct request control condition, more empathic
message recipients will be more likely to comply with the requests than less empathic
message recipients. Similarly, the two-process model predicts that an even-an-hour-
would- help will be effective for people regardless of their degree of empathy. Evidence
for a two-process model would be obtained from two main effects (one for empathy, and

one for even-a-few-minutes-would-help), and no interaction.

15

The Stiff et al. (1988) model indicates that perspective taking leads to empathic
concern, then empathic concern leads to prosocial activities. Therefore, measuring
empathic concern is as important as measuring perspective taking. The ﬁrst process of
this model is that perspective taking leads to empathic concern, then empathic concern
leads to compliance (volunteering). The second process is that the sentence, “even a few
minutes would help” would directly lead to compliance (volunteering). Both an even-a-
few-minutes-would-help strategy and empathy may ﬁmction independently.

For instance, in the recruiting volunteer context on campus, a combination of the
absence of an even-a-few-minutes—would-help strategy and low perspective taking will
produce the lowest compliance rate. There is no effect of an even-a—few-minutes-would-
help strategy, and students with low perspective taking are less likely to engage in
volunteering activities. Thus, this combination should produce the lowest compliance. A
combination of the absence of an even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy and high
perspective taking will produce moderate compliance. The students with high
perspective taking are more likely to comply to volunteer on campus. However, there is
no effect of an even-a-few-minutes—would-help strategy. Therefore, this combination
should produce moderate compliance. A combination of an even-a-few-minutes-would-
help strategy and low perspective taking will also produce moderate compliance.
Students with low perspective taking are less likely to volunteer on campus. However,
there is an effect of “even a few minutes would help” sentence. Thus, this combination
should produce moderate compliance. Finally, a combination of an even-a-few-minutes-
would-help strategy and high perspective taking will produce the highest compliance rate.

Students with high perspective taking are more likely to engage in volunteering activities.

16

In addition, the effects of “even a few minutes would help” technique may remain
constant across perspective taking. Therefore, this combination produces the highest
compliance. These are the anticipated results if both perspective taking and an even-a-
few-minutes-would-help technique independently predict compliance. That is, it is
possible that perspective taking effects are general across strategy conditions and vise
versa.

The alternative model is the moderator model. Based on the Stiff et al. (1988)
model, perspective taking leads to empathic concern, then empathic concern leads to
prosocial activities (i.e., empathic concern directly leads to the compliance of the request).
However, empathic concern can be a moderator for helping. An individual’s degree of
empathic concern is a moderating factor when a person decides to be or not to be a
volunteer on campus. In this case, an interaction effect exists between an even-a-few-
minutes-would-help strategy and empathic concern. Interaction is present when we ﬁnd
that the simple effects associated with one independent variable (presence or absence of
an even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy) are not the same at all levels of the other
independent variable (high or low empathic concern) (Kepple, 1991). In the moderating
model, compliance is expected in three of the four combinations (a combination of
absence of an even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy and high empathic concern, a
combination of even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy and low empathic concern, and
a combination of even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy and high empathic concern).

An absence of an even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy will produce
compliance when students have high empathic concern. When students are high in

perspective taking, they are more likely to feel empathic concern, which will lead to

17

volunteering activities. Thus, students with high in empathic concern are more likely to
volunteer despite of an absence of an even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy.

An even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy will also produce compliance when
students have low empathic concern. Students with low empathic concern are less likely
to engage in volunteering activities compared to students with high empathic concern.
But, an even-a-few-minutes-would-help technique may maximize its effectiveness to
students with low empathic concern. Stated differently, the even-a-few-minutes-would-
help strategy is predicted to be relatively more effective on people who are less empathic
concern because these are the people who need persuading.

An even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy will produce compliance when
students have high empathic concern. However, the even-a-few-minutes—would-help
strategy may produce minimal gains in the effectiveness to students with high empathic
concern. Students with high empathic concern are more likely to engage in volunteering
activities regardless of the sentence, “even a few minutes would help.” Thus, students
are less likely to be inﬂuenced by the sentence, “even a few minutes would help.”

Finally, the absence of an even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy and low
empathic concern will produce no compliance. In this case, students with low
perspective taking are less likely to feel empathic concern, and will be less likely to lead
to volunteering activities. Since there is no the even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy,

students will not comply.

18

Table 1
Two Rival Models
1). The two-process model
Perspective Taking —> Empathic Concern —> Compliance (volunteering)

“Even a few minutes would help’

 

 

 

 

 

Even a few minutes would help
Empathy No Yes
Low Low (-1) Moderate (0)
High Moderate (0) High (+1)

 

 

 

 

2). The moderator model

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even a few minutes would help
Empathic Concern No Yes
Low No compliance (-3) Compliance (+1)
High Compliance (+1) Compliance (+1)

 

 

 

 

Distinguishing the relationship between an even-a-few-minutes-would-help
strategy and empathy into either the two-process model or the moderator model is crucial.
Examining how perspective taking and empathic concern are related to an even-a-few-
minutes-would-help strategy will help to understand better the effectiveness in the

process of recruiting volunteers.

19

 

Method
Participants

One-hundred-seven people who appeared to be students and were walking on the
university campus during school hours were approached. Of those, 63 people (58.9 %)
listened to the solicitor’s request. Of those, 55 agreed to the consent forms. The
demographics of those who agreed to the consent forms were 22 males (40 %) and 33
females (60 %). Of those, 10 people (18.2 %) complied with the volunteering request
and 45 people (81.8 %) did not comply. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 28 (M
= 21.64, SD = 2.26).

In addition, data concerning perspective taking and empathic concern were
collected in class as a comparison group. Forty students (14 males, 25 females, 1 sex not
disclosed) agreed to ﬁll in the questionnaires. Their ages ranged from 20 to 25 (M =
21.68, SD = 1.19).

PM

This experiment was a two (even-a-few-minutes-would-help and control)
independent groups experiment with two measured independent variables (perspective
taking and empathic concern). The agreement to volunteer or not was the dependent
variable.

Procedure

Two female students’ solicitors who were blind to the hypothesis in the study
were trained before the experiment. Before approaching potential participants, a random
assignment to the experimental or control condition was made. The solicitors then
approached individuals who were walking on the university campus during school hours.

A solicitor introduced herself and said:

20

I am recruiting volunteers for administrating orientation programs for new
international students. Volunteers are involved in a range of activities, for
example, picking students up from the airport, taking them to campus tours,
coordinating orientations, or being at reception center to welcome new students
and check them in. Would you be interested in being a volunteer for one of those
activities?

In addition, for half of potential participants, the request included one more sentence,

“Even a few minutes would help.”

When a participant refused the request, then the solicitor told him or her that the
request was made as part of an experiment, and informed consent was requested. If
consent was granted, the person was asked to ﬁll out a questionnaire concerning
measures of perspective taking, empathic concern, and demographics. If consent was
refused, his or her response was discarded. If a participant cemplied with the request, the
same procedures were followed, except that the participant was also given a volunteer
form from the ofﬁce for international students and scholars and information on
volunteering.

Measurement

The questionnaire consisted of measures of perspective taking, empathic concern,
and demographic questions. Perspective taking is measured with six Likert-type items
with 5-point response formats. Similarly, empathic concern is assessed with six Likert-
type items with 5-point response formats. Both scales were developed by Stiff et al.
(1988). Stiff et al. (1988) provided evidence of acceptable reliability and

unidirnensionality. The alpha coefﬁcients for perspective taking was .70. One empathic

21

concern item was deleted because it was negatively correlated with other items. Items
were then summed as measures of their respective constructs. The alpha coefﬁcients for
empathic concern was .72. The distributions of both scale totals approximated normality.
The demographic questions address respondent’s age and sex.
Results

To ensure that the perspective taking and empathic concern scores of the
experimental subjects were not unique to people who volunteered to listen to the request,
data were collected both in the experiment and the classroom. For comparison for a
perspective taking, 55 participants (M = 3.54, Si) = .74) were observed in the experiment
and 40 participants (M = 3.56, S_D = .55) were collected in the classroom. For empathic
concern, 55 participants (M = 3.99. S_D = .68) were observed from the experiment and 40
participants (M = 3.91, SD = .53) were collected from the classroom. Scale totals were
normally distributed in both groups. In independent sample t-tests, there was no
signiﬁcant differences for perspective taking, 1(93) = -0.28, p = n_s, nor empathic concern,
1(93) = 0.63, p = g, between the experiment and the classroom conditions. Potential age
differences between the experiment and the classroom were also examined. The
participants from the experiment ranged in age from 18 to 28 (M = 21.64, S_D = 2.26).
The ages from the classroom ranged from 20 to 25 (M = 21.68, S]; = 1.19). In the two
independent sample t-test, a signiﬁcant age difference was not found between in the
experiment and the classroom conditions, 1(93) = -0.09, p = ns.

As an additional check, independent sample t-tests were conducted to test if
perspective taking and empathic concern scores differed between the experiment and the

control groups. Perspective taking did not differ Signiﬁcantly, t(53) = 1.65, p = n_s_.

22

Neitherdid empathic concern, 3(53) = 0.36, p = n_s. Therefore, the degrees of perspective
taking and empathic concern did not differ between in the control and the even-a-few-
minutes-would-help situations.
Hypothesis 1

The effectiveness of the sentence, “Even a few minutes would help,” was tested
with a Chi Square test. F iﬁy-ﬁve participants consented. Of those, 29 people (52.7 %)
heard the control question and 26 people (47.3 %) heard the even-a-few-minutes-would-
help question. In the control group, 25 people (86.2 %) rejected the requests and 4
people (13.8 %) complied with the requests. In the even-a-few-minutes-would-help
group, 20 people (76.9 %) rejected the requests and 6 people (23.1 %) complied with the
requests. These data were presented in Table 1. Adding one sentence, “Even a few
minutes would help” increased the compliance rate by 9.3 % compared to the request
without that sentence. This increase, however, was not statistiCally signiﬁcant, )6 (l) =
0.79, p = ns. Similarly, an independent sample t-test between the control group (N =29,
M = .14, S2 = .35) and the even-a-few-minutes-would-help group (N = 26, M =.23, S_D
= .43) showed that they did not differ signiﬁcantly, 3(53) = 0.88, p = n_s, one-tailed.
Therefore, hypothesis 1 was not supported by the data, even though compliance rate were
in the predicted direction.

Table 2

Percentage of Subjects Compliance in the Control and the Treatment Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comply
No Yes Total
Control 25(86.2 %) 4 (13.8 %) 29 (52.7 %)
Treatment 20 (76.9 %) 6 (23.1 %) 26 (47.3 %)
Total 45 (81.8 %) 10 (18.2 %) 55 (100 %)

 

23

A binary logistic regression was computed with perspective taking and empathic
concern as independent variable and compliance as the dependent variable to initially test
the two-process model. As anticipated, perspective taking did not contribute signiﬁcantly
to the prediction of compliance, b = -0.07, p = gs, but empathic concern did, b = 2.74, p
< .05. Because a caused string was anticipated, correlations were also computed among
compliance, perspective taking and empathic concern. Perspective taking and empathic
concern were signiﬁcantly correlated, {(53) =.44, p<.01, and empathic concern was also
signiﬁcantly correlated with compliance, [(53) =.42, p_<.01. However, perspective taking
was not signiﬁcantly correlated with compliance, [(53) =. l 7, p = g. These results were
presented in Table 3. This pattern of correlations is consistent with perspective taking
leading to empathic concern and empathic concern leading to compliance. The predicted
indirect effect for perspective taking on compliance was .18, and was within sampling
error of the observed effect. These data were consistent with perspective taking leading
to empathic concern, which, in turn, lead to a greater probability of compliance.

Table 3
Correlations Among Perspective Taking, Empathic Concern and Compliance

P 've T ' 'c Concern
've T ' 1.00

'c Concern .44" 1.00
l .17 .42"

 

Note: Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .01 , df = 53.
Model Testing.

In the two-process model, empathy and the even-a-few-minutes-would-help
strategy are independent predictors of volunteering. The alternative model is the

moderator model. An individual’s degree of empathy is a moderating factor when a

24

person decides to be or not to be a volunteer on campus. In this case, an interaction effect
exists between the even-a-few—minutes-would-help strategy and empathy is expected.
Correlations among compliance, perspective taking and empathic concern were
computed in both the control and the even-a-few-minutes-would-help conditions. In the
control situation, perspective taking was negatively correlated with compliance, 1' = -.23 p
= g, and empathic concern was positively correlated with compliance, r = .34, p = ns.
Perspective taking was also positively correlated with empathic concern, r = .26, p = gs.
None of these correlations, however, were statistically signiﬁcant. These data were
presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Correlations in Control Group

T ' ' Concern
'veT ’ 1.00

'c Concern .26 1.00
l -.23 .34

 

Note: df = 27.

When the sentence “Even a few minutes would help” was added, perspective
taking was signiﬁcantly correlated with compliance, r =.60, p_<.01. Empathic concern
was also signiﬁcantly correlated with compliance, 1' =.48, p<.05. Perspective taking was
signiﬁcantly correlated with empathic concern, I = .65, p<.01. These data were presented

in Table 5.

25

Table 5
Correlations in Treatment Group

've Takin 'c Concern
've Takin 1.00

' Concern .65** 1.00
l .60** .48* 1.00

 

Note: “Correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .01, *correlation is signiﬁcant at p < .05, df = 24.

In the control group, perspective taking and empathic concern were positively
associated with each other, but perspective taking was negatively correlated with
compliance, whereas empathic concern was positively correlated with compliance. None
of these variables were signiﬁcantly correlated with each other in the control group. On
the other hand, perspective taking, empathic concern and compliance were signiﬁcantly
and positively associated with each other in the even-a-few-minutes-would-help situation.
Especially, perspective taking was more strongly correlated with both empathic concern
(g = 1.78, p < .08) and compliance (g = 3.24, p_ < .01) in the treatment group, although the
difference for empathic concern was not statistically signiﬁcant.

Separate binary logistic regressions were computed in both the control and the
even-a-few-minutes-would-help conditions. In the control group, perspective taking did
not contribute signiﬁcantly to the prediction of compliance, 1; = -1.79, p = gs, however,
empathic concern signiﬁcantly contributed to the prediction of compliance, l_) = 3.04, p
< .05. In the even-a-few-minutes-would-help condition, perspective taking again did not
signiﬁcantly contribute to the prediction of compliance, 9 = 2.05, p = 3, but neither did
empathic concern, b = 1.41 , p = n_s_. The slope for perspective taking was negative in the
control group, but positive in the even-a-few-minutes-would-help condition. Therefore,

perspective taking was negatively associated with the prediction of compliance and

26

empathic concern was positively associated with the prediction of compliance in the
control condition. In the even-a-few-minutes-would—help condition, both perspective
taking and empathic concern were positively associated with the prediction of
compliance.

For a further analysis, perspective taking and empathic concern were receded with
a median split into high and low. The median of perspective taking was 3.6 and the
median of empathic concern was 3.9. A 2 (request type) x 2 (perspective taking) x 2
(empathic concern) independent groups analysis of variance revealed an interaction
between request type and perspective taking with compliance as the dependent variable,
E(l, 51) = 15.33, p < .001, n2 = .18. These are presented in the Figure 1.

Figure 1

An Interaction Between Request Type and Perspective Taking with Compliance
as the Dependent Variable

 

 

0.5 _ 1 . . ﬂ .
0.4 7 f
' .~ . /

0.3 -

. - - O - -Low Perspective Taking
. i ' +High Perspective Taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance

 

 

 

 

Control Treatment

 

 

 

27

Since an interaction was found in the experiment, the data are consistent with the
moderator model. However, the moderator model is more complicated than anticipated.
Perspective taking moderated the effects of the even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy
when a person decided to be or not to be a volunteer on campus. These data suggest that
people who had low empathic concern did not comply with the request, whereas people
who had high empathic concern complied with the request. However, people who had
high perspective taking complied more when the even-a-few-minutes-would-help request
was made than when that request was not made, whereas people who had low perspective
taking complied more when the even-a-few-minutes-would-help request was absent than 4

when the request was present. These were presented in the table 6.

 

 

 

 

Table 6
The New Model
Even a few minutes would help
No Yes

Low Perspective High Compliance Low Compliance

Taking
High Perspective Low Compliance High Compliance

Taking

 

 

 

 

 

Note: People high in empathic concern are only considered in this case.
Volunteering Time
In the volunteering form, participants who agreed to volunteer were asked to ﬁll
out how much time they would volunteer. The question was, “how much time are you
willing to volunteer?” Ten people agreed to volunteer out of 55 people who agreed to the
consent forms. Of those, 4 people complied with the request in the control group, and 6
people in the even-a-few-minutes-would-help group complied. Hours were converted

into minutes. The mean number of minutes (N = 4, M = 195 minutes per week, S_D =

28

165.23) that people signed volunteer forms in the control group was greater, but not

signiﬁcantly so, than that of in the even-a-few-minuteS-would-help group (N = 6, M =

140 minutes per week, S_D_ = 97.98), t(8) = -0.67, p = g. Correlations among perspective

taking, empathic concern and time were computed. The correlation between perspective

taking and time was not statistically signiﬁcant, {(8) = -.20, p = g. The correlation

between empathic concern and time, [(8) = .24, p = gs, was also not signiﬁcant.
Discussion

The purpose of my study was to test the effectiveness of a strategy for getting
more university students involved in volunteering activities by adding the sentence, “even
a few minutes would help.” To uncover the relationship between “even a few minutes
would help” study and empathy, two rival models were proposed. In the two-process
model, empathy and the-even-a-few-minutes-would-help condition are independent
predictors of volunteering. The alternative model is the moderator model. In‘other
words, an individual’s degree of empathy is a moderating factor when a person decides to
be or not to be a volunteer on campus. In this case, an interaction effect exists between
the even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy and empathy. People who were walking on
campus were asked to volunteer by confederates and also were asked to ﬁll out the
questionnaires concerning perspective taking and empathic concern.

The effectiveness of the sentence, “even a few minutes would help” was not
statistically greater than the request absent of that sentence. However, the frequency was
increased by 9.3 % when the sentence “even a few minutes would help” was added. The
sample size might have been too small to produce statistical signiﬁcance, because only 10

people complied out of 55 participants who agreed to listen to the request.

29

Stiff et al.’s model (1988) was consistent with the data. Perspective taking was
only signiﬁcantly correlated with empathic concern, and empathic concern was correlated
with compliance. However, this model appeared to change depending on the request type.
In the control group, none of the variables were signiﬁcantly correlated with each other.
In addition, perspective taking was negatively correlated with compliance. In a
regression, however, empathic concern signiﬁcantly predicted the compliance in the
control group. In the even-a—few-minutes-would-help group, compliance, perspective
taking, and empathic concern were all signiﬁcantly and positively correlated with each
other. Perspective taking was especially highly correlated with compliance of the request.
Therefore, it might be assumed that a person who had high perspective taking was less
likely to comply in the control condition. On the other hand, a person who had high
perspective taking was more likely to comply in the even-a-few-minutes-would-help
condition. In the control condition, people who had low perspective taking were more
likely to comply with the request, whereas people who had high perspective taking were
less likely to comply with the request. In the even-a-few-minutes-would-help condition,
people who had low perspective taking were less likely to comply with the request,
whereas people who had high perspective taking were more likely to comply with the
request. Therefore, adding one sentence, “Even a few minutes would help” was effective
for people who were high perspective taking.

As hypothesized, this study showed that the degree of empathic concern was the
key to predict the effectiveness of the request. None of the people who were low in
empathic concern complied with the request regardless of the request type or the degree

of perspective taking. That is, people should have a feeling of caring for others at ﬁrst.

30

Based on people who have a feeling of caring for others (high empathic concern), the
sentence, “even a few minutes would help” derives different consequences depending on
peOple’s degree of perspective taking.

The predicted moderator model was consistent with the data to the extent that an
interaction occurred. When people have more ability to understand an other’s viewpoint
(high perspective taking), the even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy is more effective
than the absence of this strategy. On the other hand, when people have little ability to
understand an other’s viewpoint (low perspective taking), the even-a-few-minutes-would-
help strategy is not effective compared to the absence of this strategy.

People who have low perspective taking and high empathic concern may need to
hear the needs of volunteers directly rather than hearing a minimum request, because they
may not understand the true meaning of a minimum request. A minimum request is made
because a solicitor fears rejection by asking too much. In this case, the sentence, “even a
few minutes would help,” may not be an effective message. Alternatively, people who
have high perspective taking and high empathic concern may feel obligated to comply
with the request when they hear a minimum request because they are more likely to
understand solicitor’s feeling. In this case, the sentence, “even a few minutes would
help,” can be an effective message.

The difference in reported volunteering time ﬁom those who agreed to sign the
volunteering sheet cannot be explained by the differences of the degrees of perspective
taking and empathic concern. Perspective taking was negatively correlated with reported
volunteering time, but empathic concern was positively correlated with reported

volunteering time. But neither of these correlations was statistically signiﬁcant.

31

Reported volunteering time in the control group was larger than that in the treatment
group. Thus, the result of this study was not consistent with the study of Cialdini and
Schroeder (1976), in which the amount of money donated from the treatment group was
bigger than that of control group.

In this experiment, the effectiveness of the sentence, “even a few minutes would
help,” was not conﬁrmed except for people high in perspective taking. The experiment
did show that people’s degree of perspective taking and empathic concern played
important roles when people heard the recruiting messages. Thus, it is more effective to
target people who have high empathic concern than those who have low empathic
concern. Furthermore, for people who have low perspective taking, it is more effective to
send a direct message, “will you be a volunteer for the OISS?” than to ask a minimum
request, “even a few minutes would help.” On the other hand, for people who have high
perspective taking, it is more effective to ask a minimum request, “even a few minutes
would help,” than to ask directly, “will you be a volunteer for the OISS?”

As an implication of this study, targeting people who have high empathic concern
and high perspective taking is crucial. However, none of the studies speciﬁed the
particular groups that were more likely to have high empathic concern. Likewise, no
study articulated that the certain groups were more likely to have high perspective taking.
Obviously, it would be efﬁcient if we can target groups that tend to have higher empathic
concern and perspective taking when recruiting volunteers on campus.

This study has a limitation. Because the sample size was small, no signiﬁcant
difference between in the control and the even-a-few-minutes-would-help groups was

found, although the compliance rate was in the predicted direction. Therefore, future

32

research needs to be done with larger sample sizes to test the effectiveness of the
sentence, “even a few minutes would help.”

Overall, the results showed that adding one sentence, “Even a few minutes would
help” was more effective when people had high perspective taking and high empathic
concern than when people had low perspective taking and high empathic concern. The
experiment also showed that the even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy and the degree
of perspective taking had no impact on people who had low empathic concern. Thus,
peeple who were low in empathic concern did not comply with the volunteering requests.
Furthermore, replication of this study needs to be done to test whether people who have
low empathic concern are not affected by any messages with regard to recruiting
volunteers. Finally, the relationship among the degrees of perspective taking, empathic

concern and compliance requires further investigation as well.

33

Appendix

The Questionnaire For Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern

Instructions: Please answer the following questions by using the scale below.

5 = Strongly Agree 3 = Not sure or 2 = Disagree
4 = Agree Neutral 1 = Strongly Disagree

1. Before I criticize somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel in their place.
Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
2. If I’m sure I’m right about something, 1 don’t waste much time listening to other people’s arguments.
Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
3. I believe there are two sides to every question and I try to look at both of them.
Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
4. I sometimes ﬁnd it difﬁcult to see things from the other person's point of view.
Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
5. I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.

Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
6. When I am upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his or her “shoes” for a while.
Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
7. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them.
Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
8. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel much pity for them.
Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
9. 1 often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
10. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree

1 1. Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.

Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree

12. I am often touched by the things that I see happen.

Strongly Agree 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Disagree
1 am (circle one) Male Female
My age is (years)

34

References

Abrahams, M. F., & Bell, R. A. (1994). Encouraging charitable contributions: An
examination of three models of door-in-the-face compliance. Communication
Research. 21. 131-153.

Bell, R. A., Abrahams, M. F., Clark, C. L., & Schlatter, C. (1996). The door-in-the-face
compliance strategy: An individual differences analysis of two models in an AIDS

fundraising context. Communication Quarterly, 44, 107-124.

Brownstein, R., & Katzev, R. (1985). The relative effectiveness of three compliance
techniques in eliciting donations to a cultural organization. Journal of Applies

Social Psychology, 15, 564-574.

Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all
technique. Journal of Personaﬁity and social Psychology. 51. 277-283.

Cantrill, J. G., & Seibold, D. R. (1986). The perceptual contrast explanation of
sequential request strategy effectiveness. Human Communication Research 13,
253-267.

 

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Inﬂuence: Science and practice. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.

Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Basset, R., & Miller, J. (1978). Low-ball procedure for
producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 463-476.

Cialdini, R. B., & Schroeder, D. A. (1976). Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry
contributions: When even a penny helps. J omal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 34, 599-604.

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J ., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L.
(1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-
the-face technique. Journal of Persoaalitv and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, D. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A
two-stage model. J ournM of Personality and Social psychology, 36, 752-766.

Congressional Budget Ofﬁce. (June 11, 2001). Richer man, poorer man. US. News &
World Report.

Davis, M. H. (1980). Multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10. 75.

35

 

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidirectional approach. Jouml of Personﬂityand Social Psychology. 44. 113-
126.

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.
Brown Communications, Inc.

Deutsch, F., & Madle, R. A. (1975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations,
measurements, and a cognitive theoretical approach. Human Development. 18.
267-287.

Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive
strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human
Communication Research. 10. 461-488.

Dovido, J. F ., Allen, J. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). Speciﬁcity of empathy-induced
helping: Evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Persoaality and Social
Psychology, 27. 448-445.

Ellis, S. J. (1986). From the Top Down: The Executive Role in Volunteer Program
Success. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Energize.

Eisenberg, N., Cialdini, R. B., McCreath, H., & Shell, R. (1987). Consistency-based
compliance: When and why do children become vulnerable? Journal of Personalng
and Socijal Psychology, 52, 1174-1181.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related
behaviors. Psychological Bulletin. 101. 91-119.

Feshback, N. D. (1975). Empathy in children: Some theoretical and empirical
considerations. Cougelimg Psychologist, 5, 25-29.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4. 195-202.

Fuchsberg, G. (1990, March 6). Charitiesyare stepping up recruiting as good help grows
harder to ﬁnd. The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
SociologicaLlReview. 25.161-178.

Katzev, R., & Brownstein, R. (1988). The inﬂuence of enlightenment on compliance.
The Journal of Socﬁrﬂsychology, 129, 335-347.

Kepple, G. (1991). Desiga and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook. Third Edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

36

Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
3;,1134-1146.

Langer, E. J., Arthur, B., & Benzion, C. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly
thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635-642.

Lawson, D.M. (1998). Volunteering: 101 Ways You Can Improve the World and Your
Lﬁ. San Diego, CA: ALTI Publishing.

Michigan Nonproﬁt Association. (1999). Giving Volunteering. Grand Haven, MI:
Council of Michigan Foundations.

O’Keefe, D. J. (2000). Guilt and social inﬂuence. Communication Yearbook. 23, 67-
101.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). Three reasons for doubting the adequacy of the reciprocal-
concessions explanation of door-in-the-face effects. Communication Studies. 50,
21 1-220.

O’Keefe, D. J., & F igge, M. (1999). Guilt and expected guilt in the door-in-the-face
technique. Communication Monoggaphs,-66, 312-324.

O’Keefe, D. J ., & Figge, M. (1997). A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face
strategy. Human Communication Research. 24. 64-81.

Reeves, R. A., Baker, G. A., Boyd, J. G., & Cialdini, R. B. (1991). The door-in-the-face
technique: Reciprocal concessions vs. self-presentational explanations. Journal of
Social Behaviorjnd Personality, 6, 545-558.

Reingen, P. H. (1978). Inducing compliance with a donation request. The Journal of
Social Psychology. 106. 282-282.

Rogers, C. R. (1 95 7). The necessary and sufﬁcient condition of therapeutic personality
change. Journal of con_sulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.

Shelton, M. L, & Rogers, R.W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to
help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 366-378.

Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism reconsidered: The effect of
denying feedback. Journal of Persoaality and Social Psychology. 57. 641-650.

Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J .P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy,

communication, and prosocial behavior. Communication Monographs. 55, 198-
213.

37

Toi, M., & Batson, CD. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.

Tusing, K. J ., & Dillard, J. P. (2000). The psychological reality of the door-in-the-face:
It’s helping, not bargaining. Journal of Language and Social Psychologv. 19, 5-25.

Weyant, J. M. (1984). Applying social psychology to induce charitable donations.
Joumﬂ of Applied Socgial Psychology, 14, 441-447.

38