Abstract

This scenario study used a 3 (influence tactic) x 2 (strength of rational persuasion) experimental design to investigate what combination of proactive influence tactics was most effective in gaining commitment. It was only the second study after Barry and Shapiro (1992) to examine experimentally combinations of proactive influence tactics. It used the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) to derive hypotheses. It tested 103 individuals (46 men and 57 women) who were on average 20.8 years old. Participants read a hypothetical e-mail by a co-manager. They rated the extent to which they would commit to the co-manager's request. They also listed their positive and negative thoughts about the issue. The results showed that: (1) Rational persuasion gained the same amount of commitment whether it was combined with ingratiation or apprising; (2) ingratiation and apprising did not affect how deeply participants scrutinized the issue (i.e., elaboration); (3) commitment was not related to participants' level of elaboration; and (4) the number of influence tactics used did not change the level of commitment. One hypothesis was supported: that stronger rational persuasion gains more commitment than weaker forms of rational persuasion. These results are consistent with some of the literature, which states that not all tactics can be effectively combined. These conclusions are explored in light of the study's limitations. Future lines of research using ELM are also discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]