Life History Strategies and Reciprocity: Are we Responding to Concessions in an Online Context?

(1)

Life History Strategies and Reciprocity:

Are we Responding to Concessions in an Online Context?

(2)

Life history strategies and reciprocity:

Are we responding to concessions in an online context?

Master thesis – M.Sc. Marketing Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Words: 4565 (excluded abstract)

May 31st_{, 2018}

Author

André Midtby

S3515346

Midtby.andre@gmail.com

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Marketing Management

Supervisor

University of Groningen

(3)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to see if the principle of reciprocity as a social influence technique can be effective in an online context to increase level of compliance by voluntarily participating in future studies. More specifically, the principle was presented through inducing a counter-concession, similar to the door-in-the-face technique. Based on life history theory, this study also examined if a person’s childhood history determined the extent to which they were influenced by the reciprocity heuristic.

182 participants took part, but only 87 of them completed the questionnaire correctly. They were approached using Facebook and asked to voluntarily participate in this master thesis research.

A 2x2 ANOVA analysis was conducted, but failed to find significant results for the two main effects (reciprocity vs. control) and (fast life-history strategy vs. slow life-history strategy), and the interaction effect. These findings suggest that inducing a counter-concession, as an exception towards a target person in an online context, might not be successful. Furthermore, a person’s life history strategy seems to be

(4)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Does altering the way you frame a question increase the likelihood of eliciting compliance towards your request? And why are some people more willing to volunteer than others? Looking back at decades of studies related to social influence techniques, we do find them to increase compliance compared to a direct inquiry when being asked to devote time and effort to charities (Burger 1999; Cialdini and Goldstein 2004; Fennis, Janssen & Vohs, 2009). The principle of reciprocity is a social influence technique that can enforce uninvited debts and create an obligation to repay a favor, even when the target person does not have any interest in being helped in the first place. Usually, in a face-to-face interaction, these feelings are being reinforced due to social pressure and a violation of returning the favor can create a negative feeling of guilt which we do not want to hold on to.

Furthermore, a person’s self-control can affect how decisions are being made throughout life and can help us to get a deeper understanding of why people choose as they do. Life history theory measures long-term self-control based on a person’s childhood and varies on a fast-to-slow continuum, where individuals with a slower strategy tend to be more reflective and cautious, and those with a faster strategy can have an impulsive decision-making process and higher degree of opportunistic behavior. As a result, this study examines if the norm of reciprocity holds in an online context, a medium most of us are using on a daily basis, and if a person’s life history strategy affects their willingness to contribute to a charitable cause by acting as a volunteer.

To cope with thousands of influence attempts every day that want to steer our attention to their products and services and further increase our desire to make a purchase, we often need to engage in active

self-regulation. People have different skills of self-control, and one source of self-control can be one's childhood, where the extent of childhood stress, poverty and uncertainty determines how you deal with life. Previous literature highlights the importance of high self-control in the process of resisting unwanted persuasion (Baumeister, 2002; Burkley, 2008; Fennis, Janssen & Vohs, 2009; Janssen et al. 2008), but there is also evidence supporting the opposite, that low self-control can foster the use of resistance-promoting heuristics (Janssen & Fennis, 2017). Either way, there is a common agreement that those low in self-control use heuristics as a code of conduct.

(6)

2

2.0 BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

2.1 Principle of reciprocity

The principle of reciprocity means that we should do to others as they do to us, also known as ‘tit-for-tat’. When someone does us a favor, we tend to feel an indebtedness that can be resolved by giving something of similar value back to that person. This stimulates a positive response to a positive action, whereas the occurrence of a negative action will most likely promote a negative response to justify the imbalance. Reciprocity dates far back in history, where exchange of favors and gifts took place and ancient societies relied heavily upon various forms of reciprocity within social systems, politics and economics (Coffee, 2012). The effect is so widespread that sociologist Alvin Gouldner (1960) argued the norm to be applicable in most cultures. This implies an interest to examine if the robustness of reciprocity will be present in an online context.

Reciprocal concession was introduced by Cialdini et al. (1975) as a more subtle way to get someone to comply with a request. The technique goes under the norm of reciprocity, but instead of doing a favor to a person and then ask for one in return, it has a slightly different approach. It begins by asking for a large request that most likely will be refused, followed by a smaller request. This way the second request has a higher probability to be accepted, than if the same request was made without the first, substantially larger request. Moreover, the number of concessions a person makes seems to evoke concessions in return by the other person (Chertkoff & Conley, 1967; Benton, Kelley & Liebling 1972). A reciprocal action is not to be confused with altruism that is seen as an unconditional act of giving to others, without expecting something in return. Reciprocal concessions are occasionally used in sales negotiations by making a large request, followed by concessions which are eventually met halfway to reach an agreement. One other reason why this could be an effective tool in negotiation is the presence of the contrast principle. We tend to use the information presented as the foundation for our decision-making, and after being exposed to a larger request the second request is perceived less costly in comparison. Additionally, there is evidence supporting higher satisfaction for subjects facing this strategy compared to others that were only exposed to one request, equivalent to the value of the second request (Cialdini, 2009). As internet communication plays a vital role in most industries, and negotiations can occur through this, it is of interest to investigate whether the effectiveness of this technique applies for contexts beyond a face-to-face interaction.

(7)

3 by complying with a second request, after refusing the first request (Cialdini et al. 1975; Rodafinos, Vucevic & Sideridis, 2005; Harari, Mohr & Hosey, 1980). In addition, Fennis (2008) found nonverbal behavior communicating eagerness and confidence to further boost the effectiveness of DITF. This emphasize the effectiveness of the technique in a face-to-face interaction.

“You should make concessions to those who make concessions to you”

(Cialdini et al. 1975). With the quote above in mind, the success of this procedure holds on to fulfill two steps: The first request should be rejected by the subject and the second request should be perceived as the requester has conceded in some way (Cialdini et al. 1975). Another approach that successfully induced a counter-concession was done by excusing the participants from doing an extensive task as a way of doing them a favor, before asking the second request (Fennis, Janssen & Vohs, 2009). This suggests two different ways of inducing a counter-concession, where the latter will be used as a manipulation of the reciprocity heuristic.

The latest meta-analysis of door-in-the-face technique (Feeley, Anker & Aloe, 2012) concluded it to be successful for both face-to-face and mediated contexts which include telephone, written, and online methods of soliciting compliance. They also found it more successful when the requester is asking to volunteer his or her time compared to monetary donation or personal health behavior (e.g. blood donation, reduce alcohol consumption) and found students to comply more often compared to non-students. Another important finding, consistent with previous meta-analysis from 1998 (O’Keefe & Hale, 1998), indicates that the DITF strategy only works with prosocial causes and therefore might not be as effective in sales as predicted (Feeley, Anker & Aloe, 2012). Reciprocal behavior has been found in virtual communities, where people interact and engage in sharing information, ideas and help each other out about their common interests (Chan & Li, 2008). The higher enjoyment experienced, and stronger social ties, have been shown as

explanations for the likelihood of a member to display reciprocal behaviors. This is relevant as it shows that despite the medium used to communicate, people tend to return the favor.

Hence, it is expected that it is possible to induce a counter-concession on the part of the participant in an online context, however a face-to-face interaction can benefit from social pressure, body language and higher involvement from the subject, which in turn can increase the obligation to make a concession.

(8)

4

2.2 Life History Theory

Life History (LH) theory highlights people’s resource allocation from an evolutionary perspective rather than an economic perspective and addresses how organisms allocate limited resources to maximize evolutionary fitness (Roff, 2002; Stearns, 1992). As we need to ensure survival, growth and reproduction, we do not have the possibility to maximize all of the critical tasks in life at the same time. This implies that certain tradeoffs must be made in order to prioritize tasks with the highest importance for the individual person. This is relevant to better understand and predict why people think and behave the way they do.

Overall, people differ in what they prioritize, including consumption in general and the level of processing information before making a decision. The LH theory distinguishes between fast strategy, where people tend to have simple and impulsive decision making with less emphasis on the delayed benefit, as opposed to slow strategy which induces more reflective thoughts in one’s actions. For example, a fast strategist would find it more appealing spending time and money on gambling, drinking and seeking conspicuous products to show one's social status and wealth. Conversely, a slow strategist may save money for future residential and invest time into reading books and education for long-term benefits (Mittal, Griskevicius & Ellis, 2014). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that a person’s life history strategy could affect level of compliance.

Simple and impulsive decision-making can be seen as lack of the ability to control oneself, namely self-control. Previous research has shown that self-control depletion can make people more receptive to

persuasive attempts through the use of heuristics (Fennis & Janssen, 2010). Wheeler et al., (2007) found that self-regulation failure can promote the use of heuristics when processing information, which implies that fast strategists will most likely rely on heuristics in their decision-making. Therefore, the second hypothesis state that:

Hypothesis 2: When confronted with a concession, people with fast life-history strategy will reciprocate to a greater extent than slow life-history strategists.

3.0 METHOD

(9)

5

Figure 1 - Conceptual model

3.1 Participants and Design

One hundred and eighty-two people voluntarily participated in this study. After removing participants failing the attention check question (Please select, "Very true for me" as your answer choice) and

participants that did not successfully complete the questionnaire, eighty-seven results were left (51 male, 36 female; Mage = 29,69 years, SD = 7,686). The study used a 2 (fast LHS vs. slow LHS) x 2 (reciprocity vs. control) between-subjects factorial design (Figure 2). The independent variables were reciprocity and life history strategy, and the dependent variable was compliance. In addition, the scales Behavioral inhibition system (BIS) / Behavioral activation system (BAS) and Dispositional Attitude Measure (DAM) were included as covariates.

Figure 2 - Overview of the 2x2 between-subjects factorial design

3.2 Procedure

(10)

6

3.2.1 Life history strategy and covariates.

All of the participants had to answer a different set of statements and questions from scales, such as Mini-K and the covariates Dispositional Attitude Measure (DAM) and Behavioral inhibition system (BIS) /

Behavioral activation system (BAS).

First, the questionnaire presented 20 statements from the Mini-K where the participants had to answer on a 7-point scale (-3 = disagree strongly, to +3 = agree strongly, with a neutral midpoint 0 = don´t know/not applicable, α = 0.743) about topics such as risk-taking, their relationship with friends, family and sexual partners. The Mini-K is a 20-item short form of the 199-item Arizona Life History Battery (ALHB), which is a battery of cognitive and behavioral indicators of life history strategy compiled and adapted from various original sources (Figueredo et al., 2014). Human life history strategy represents an important predictor of many psychological and behavioral constructs that are of both theoretical interest and social importance. In addition, the Mini-K has been proven as a psychometrically valid and convenient short form for assessing human life history strategy (Figueredo et al., 2014). Some questions were “I can often tell how things will turn out” and “I would rather have one than several sexual relationships at a time” (See Appendix 1 for full overview). After averaging the scores per individual, a median split of 5,33 divided the participants into one either slow or fast strategists. Scores above 5,33 indicated a slow life-history strategy and scores below 5,33 resulted in a fast life-history strategy.

Next, they responded to DAM that consisted of 16 items on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unfavorable, to 7 = extremely favorable, α = 0.778) based on their attitude towards a variety of objects and issues, such as architecture, playing chess, public speaking and statistics (Appendix 1). The score per individual was averaged, and included as a control variable, where higher score indicated an overall tendency to have a positive attitude and lower score illustrated negative attitude.

After that, they answered the 24 items of BIS/BAS on a 4-point scale (1 = very false for me to 4 = very true for me, α = 0.665), about questions related to their drive to attain goals and motivation to avoid aversive outcomes. For example, “When I want something I usually go all-out to get it” and “Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit” were two of the questions they had to answer (Appendix 1). Item 2 and 22 were reverse coded and the score per individual were averaged before using it as a control variable.

3.2.2 Reciprocity heuristic

(11)

7 several advanced mathematical tasks that you will have to solve. Below you will find an example of a

similar question. You will be provided with an integrated calculator as you need this to solve the tasks. Click next to continue”. The picture presented showed multiple advanced mathematical tasks (Appendix 2). The purpose of including a picture and the information about the integrated calculator was to further increase the credibility of an upcoming test. After they clicked the next button, they were told that enough participants already were assigned for the mathematical part and that they did not have to complete it. The purpose of explicitly stating the exception was to promote a sense of relief and then provoke a counter-concession on the part of the participant to increase compliance with the volunteering request (Fennis, Janssen & Vohs, 2009; Cialdini, 2009). Participants in the no-reciprocity condition were not told about the mathematical tasks or excused from doing it. Instead, after completing the questionnaire, the no-reciprocity condition were shown the compliance question.

Cronbach’s alpha, one of the most widely used measures of reliability in the social and organizational sciences (Bonett & Wright, 2014), was used as a measure of internal consistency to make sure the items measured the same construct. All the scales used, had a cronbach’s alpha within the range of acceptable, since in the field of psychology the value should be at least .60 and preferably closer to .90 (Aron, Aron & Coups, 2013)

3.2.3 Compliance

When participants had finished the questionnaire, and the reciprocity condition had been exposed to the mathematical test exception, both conditions were asked to answer the following message: “The Department of Marketing are looking for people who will voluntarily participate in different types of research. If we’d ask you this favor, how much time would you be willing to participate?”. They could answer this on a scale ranging from 0 to 240 minutes using a slider and was the measure of compliance (Fennis, Janssen & Vohs, 2009). Finally, the participants were thanked for taking part in the study, and for those interested in the outcome of the research could choose to fill in their email address (Appendix 3).

4.0 RESULTS

(12)

8 Two ANCOVAs were conducted to control for the additional scales; DAM and BIS/BAS. After controlling for DAM, the main effect of reciprocity (F(1,82) = .092, p = .763), the effect of life history strategy (F(1, 82) = .237, p = .628) and the interaction effect (F(1, 82) = .284, p = .595), did not change significantly different. When controlling for BIS/BAS, the main effect of reciprocity (F(1, 82) = .075, p = .785), the effect of life history strategy (F(1, 82) = .025, p = .874) and the interaction effect (F(1, 82) = .419, p = .519), remained insignificant. Similar insignificant findings occurred when both were controlled simultaneously.

5.0 DISCUSSION

The present research asked participants to fill out an online questionnaire and tested the norm of reciprocity in an online context. In addition, the Mini-K scale was used to measure human life history strategy, an important predictor of many psychological and behavioral constructs (Figueredo et al., 2014). Hypothesis 1 proposed that being exposed to a concession would increase compliance to a request. Contrary to this prediction, the main effect of reciprocity did not reach significance. Hypothesis 2 expected people with fast life-history to reciprocate to a greater extent than slow life-history strategists when confronted with a concession. This interaction effect and the second main effect of fast LHS vs. slow LHS could not find a significant result.

5.1 Theoretical implications

These findings points out some possible explanations relating to existing theories. With similar manipulation and dependent variable as Fennis et al. (2009, experiment 4) this study failed to replicate a significant result. This could indicate that the absence of social pressure, body language and low-involvement from the

participant could be a threat to successfully inducing a counter-concession in an online context.

Cialdini et al. (1975) mentioned two steps necessary to successfully use this social influence technique. The first request should be rejected by the target person and the second request should be perceived as the requester has conceded in some way. This study did not involve the participants to actively accept or refuse whether or not they would like to perform the mathematical tasks. One possible way to get a refusal through action could have been to ask the respondents to either click on a yes or no button regarding participation with the initial request (solve several advanced mathematical tasks). Additionally, the participants may have failed to perceive the exception from taking the test as a concession by the requester.

Another requirement for the door-in-the-face effect to work, is that both requests should be formulated by the same requester (Cialdini et al., 1975; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). In this study, the second request was presented right after the original request. This proximity should argue in favor of a link between the

(13)

9 voluntarily participation. This could be perceived as a third-party asking for a request, which in turn could violate the belief that the same requester asked both questions.

If we look at previous literature related to reciprocity, a face-to-face interaction has been the mantra. With the use of door-in-the-face technique, Fennis (2008) found nonverbal behavior signaling eagerness and confidence to further boost the effect of DITF. This implies the presence of a physical person to be an important element regarding the effectiveness of DITF, whereas in an online context this would not be feasible. However, technology such as video conferences might be enough to ensure the success of the technique equivalent to physical presence.

I would like to stress the fact that the absence of significant results in this study does not mean that

reciprocity is unachievable in an online context. This experiment tested whether it was possible to induce a counter-concession for participants answering a questionnaire online. Although we do find technology such as artificial intelligence and robots to communicate with us (e.g. Google Duplex), people still hold the belief that, when they are communicating with others online it is a human-to-human interaction. For example, when people interact with others and engage in online communities, forums and through social media, some studies suggest the users of online services to experience feelings similar to those that people experience when receiving a favor (Chan & Li, 2008). Therefore, it would be reasonable to believe that research about reciprocity online as a laboratory-, field- or natural experiment could reach significance.

With the use of self-report measurement scales there will be a certain percentage of respondents that answer the scale items carelessly. These careless responses challenge the scale validity and can result to misleading findings and conclusions (Bowling et al., 2016). To prevent this, an attention check was included as one of the last scale item questions to rule out respondents that failed this question. 20,2% of respondents that completed the questionnaire failed to answer correctly. In addition, 182 responses were recorded, but only 87 of these could be used for further analysis as many of them failed to successfully complete the

questionnaire. These results verify the risk one can encounter by collecting data through questionnaire online with low-involvement respondents answering. Moreover, getting asked to voluntarily participate in future studies can be perceived as a violation of their kindness as they are already contributing with

(14)

10

5.2 Managerial implications

These findings are not covering aspects necessary to generalize the results to a larger population, but if similar findings would occur in future studies, it could be relevant for a managerial point of view. If so, the results highlight the importance of negotiations in a face-to-face interaction if the seller would like to use the door-in-the-face tactic to reach an agreement. Conversely, if a buyer would like to minimize the chance of reliance upon heuristics or being influenced by sales techniques when considering an offer, it could be beneficial to purchase or negotiate in an online context where absence of social pressure, spatial distance and asynchronous communication can increase the likelihood of rational decision-making.

A common practice online has been the use of reciprocity through providing free content, products or services and gift giving to promote an obligation to repay in exchange of their email address, liking or a subscription that can ensure the giver the possibility to spread future messages. These results indicate that reciprocity as gift giving and other marketing tactics might be more effective instead of using the door-in-the-face technique online.

5.3 Limitations and future research

Several limitations of this study suggest avenues for further research. First, self-report measurement scales have certain limitations related. According to social desirability bias, people tend to answer a questionnaire in a way that will be viewed as favorably by others. This could affect the actual differences between fast and slow strategists as over-reporting “good behavior” or under-reporting “bad behavior” might occur. Also, if the respondent is unsure about the right interpretation of a question, there is no room for explanations to clarify this and measurement validity can be threatened.

Secondly, the dependent variable was asking the participants on behalf of the Department of Marketing. To some, this might be perceived as coming from third-party and therefore not feeling the obligation to repay them, as a consequence of being excused from the mathematical test.

Thirdly, answering a questionnaire might involve lack of motivation and low-involvement from the respondents which in turn can mitigate the attempt to induce a counter-concession from making an exception. They might not find an online survey as proximate as compared to a face-to-face conversation and instead, conducting a similar experiment with participants communicating through synchronous channel, such as chat rooms/groups or video conferences could possibly alter the findings in this study.

(15)

11 Aloe, 2012). Therefore, future research should measure this and carefully see how and if this can influence the results.

Additionally, future research could replicate a similar procedure, but instead promote a refusal by asking the respondents whether they would like to participate in the mathematical test. This way they fulfill one of the two requirements mentioned by Cialdini et al. (1975) necessary for DITF to work. Thus, it could be of interest to examine the effect of reciprocity in an online context by conducting a laboratory, field or natural experiment.

5.4 Conclusion

To conclude, these results suggest that inducing a counter-concession, as an exception towards a target person in an online context, might not be successful. No significant difference was found between fast and slow strategists, suggesting that there might not be noteworthy differences related to people´s life history strategy. Despite the expectation for fast strategists to reciprocate to a greater extent than slow strategists, due to their impulsiveness and simple decision-making, the results could not reach significance. One

possible explanation could be that instead of relying on heuristics which promote compliance, fast strategists could act opportunistically and perceive helping as less interesting due to the fact that it does not benefit themselves. Another viable explanation could be related to the social desirability bias where participants answered questions based on their desired self instead of actual self.

6.0 REFERENCES

Aron, A., Aron, E., & Coups, E. (2013). Statistics for psychology. Harlow (England): Pearson Education Limited.

Baumeister, R. (2002). Yielding to Temptation: Self Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior. Journal Of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670-676. doi: 10.1086/338209 Benton, A., Kelley, H., & Liebling, B. (1972). Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate

on the outcomes of bargaining. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 24(1), 73-83. doi: 10.1037/h0033368

Bonett, D., & Wright, T. (2014). Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1002/job.1960 Bowling, N., Huang, J., Bragg, C., Khazon, S., Liu, M., & Blackmore, C. (2016). Who cares and

who is careless? Insufficient effort responding as a reflection of respondent personality. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 111(2), 218-229. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000085

(16)

12 and Review. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 303-325. doi:

10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_2

Burkley, E. (2008). The Role of Self-Control in Resistance to Persuasion. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 419-431. doi: 10.1177/0146167207310458

Chan, K., & Li, S. (2008). Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in virtual

communities: The salience of reciprocity. Journal Of Business Research, 63(9-10), 1033-1040. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.009

Chertkoff, J., & Conley, M. (1967). Opening offer and frequency of concession as bargaining strategies. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 7(2, Pt.1), 181-185. doi: 10.1037/h0024997

Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence. New York: HarperCollins e-books.

Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 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 Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.

Coffee, N. (2012). Reciprocity. The Encyclopedia Of Ancient History. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06274

Feeley, T., Anker, A., & Aloe, A. (2012). The Door-in-the-Face Persuasive Message Strategy: A Meta-Analysis of the First 35 Years. Communication Monographs, 79(3), 316-343. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2012.697631

Fennis, B.M. (2008). Persuasion pleasure and selling stress: The role of non-verbal

communication in consumer influence settings. Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 797–798.

Fennis, B., & Janssen, L. (2010). Mindlessness Revisited: Sequential Request Techniques Foster Compliance by Draining Self-control Resources. Current Psychology, 29(3), 235-246. doi: 10.1007/s12144-010-9082-x

Fennis, B., Janssen, L., & Vohs, K. (2009). Acts of Benevolence: A Limited-Resource Account of Compliance with Charitable Requests. Journal Of Consumer Research, 35(6), 906-924. doi: 10.1086/593291

Figueredo, A., Wolf, P., Olderbak, S., Gladden, P., Fernandes, H., & Wenner, C. et al. (2014).

The psychometric assessment of human life history strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 148-185. doi: 10.1037/h0099837

Gouldner, A. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161. doi: 10.2307/2092623

(17)

13 Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 373-377. doi: 10.1177/014616728063006

Janssen, L., & Fennis, B. (2017). Mindless resistance to persuasion: Low self-control fosters the use of resistance-promoting heuristics. Journal Of Consumer Behaviour, 16(6), 536-549. doi: 10.1002/cb.1646

Janssen, L., Fennis, B., Pruyn, A., & Vohs, K. (2008). The path of least resistance: Regulatory resource depletion and the effectiveness of social influence techniques. Journal Of Business Research, 61(10), 1041-1045. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.013

Mittal, C., Griskevicius, V., & Ellis, B. (2014). Consumer Behavior Across the Life Span: A Life History Theory Perspective. In S. Preston, M. Kringlbach & B. Knutson, The Interdisciplinary Science of Consumption (pp. 263-276). MIT Press.

O’Keefe, D., & Hale, S. (1998). The Door-in-the-Face Influence Strategy: A Random-Effects

Meta-Analytic Review. Annals Of The International Communication Association, 21(1), 1-33. doi: 10.1080/23808985.1998.11678947

Rodafinos, A., Vucevic, A., & Sideridis, G. (2005). The Effectiveness of Compliance Techniques: Foot in the Door Versus Door in the Face. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 145(2), 237-240. doi:

10.3200/socp.145.2.237-240

Roff , D. A. (2002). Life History Evolution. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates. Stearns , S. (1992). The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press.

(18)

14

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

20

(25)

(26)

22

(27)

Life History Strategies and Reciprocity: Are we Responding to Concessions in an Online Context?