Psych project earns more than class credit

It is not often that university term projects cross the line that divides intellectual exercise from "practical" action. This was the intent, however, for Kevin McIntyre, a professor in the psychology department, when he allowed students in his Social Psychology class to choose "Persuasion Techniques and Charitable Giving" as a topic for their final project of the fall semester.

Eight groups of 13 students were doing "what social psychologists do" by using persuasion techniques learned in class to collect donations for The Greater Boston Food Bank. The only stipulations were that the data collection take place in a public area, that the chosen techniques be administered randomly and consistently, and that all of the data be recorded and then summarized in a report detailing a hypothesis, the method, the results, and a conclusion. When the project ended in December, the Food Bank was presented with $1,015, which was used to distribute 2,081 meals to the hungry of eastern Massachusetts.

Jessie Hartman, A&S '10, along with partner Claire Specht, A&S '10, covered Edmond's Hall using the "foot-in-the-door" and "legitimizing small favors" techniques. The foot-in-the-door method of persuasion calls for the asker to propose a small amount of money and then later raise the amount after the small request has been accepted. The legitimizing small favors technique calls for the asker to make a statement such as, "Would you be willing to donate money - anything would help, even a penny." This method eliminates any excuse for not complying and serves to threaten the self-conception of being generous.

Hartman reported that there were 68 total participants, with 36 in foot-in-the-door and 32 in legitimizing small favors. Of the 36 students in foot-in-the-door, 28 agreed to make a donation, and 23 donated more than $1. The overall success rate was 82 percent, and the average donation was $2.54. This technique raised $61.32. On the other hand, 27 of the 32 participants in legitimizing small favors agreed to donate an average of $3.40, leading to a total of $91.88. In total, Hartman and Specht collected over $150 using both methods.

Another group, consisting of Kate McAuliff, A&S '10, Rene Lento, A&S '10, and Brianna Cheney, A&S '10, contrasted the foot-in-the-door and legitimizing small favors methods with a direct request for donations. McAuliff and her partners solicited freshmen students in Fitzpatrick and Gonzaga Hall, dividing the residence hall into three groups of 25 rooms and found that the percentage of students that donated money after receiving a direct request was much lower than the percentages donating in the other techniques, probably because it is easiest to decline. However, the amount of money collected using a direct request ($62.09) was almost as high as that of the legitimizing small favors technique ($66.34). McAuliffe also found that although the foot-in-the-door method was the most successful in terms of student response (88 percent of those asked donated), this technique produced the lowest amount of money ($29.14). She also observed that indirect peer pressure was a form of persuasion, as multiple students in the room often agreed to donate after the one answering the door gave money. In total, McAuliff and her partners raised about $160 for the Food Bank.

Although both Hartman and McAuliff are majoring in psychology, this is the first time that they have applied any techniques learned in the classroom directly in their lives.

"This helped me become more aware of the things that we have studied," McAuliff said. She also noted that her study of psychology has given her a greater insight into many persuasion techniques not implemented by the group, such as the "that's not all" method used by many early-morning infomercials and the "door-in-the-face" technique used by students in the Boston College Phone Center, who ask alumni and parents of students for monetary donations to the University.

These techniques that Dr. McIntyre teaches and that students use are well accepted by psychologists, yet in the end, the time period in which the collection took place could have provided the greatest persuasion of all.

"I think that the Thanksgiving and Christmas season could have impacted the desire to give," McIntyre said. Despite the "giving season's" possible distortion of the data, he was very pleased with the monetary return and plans to administer the same final project option at the end of the spring semester.