part in an experiment, before exposing the information about the inconvenient time (Cialdini et al., 1978). Although obviously they are still free to backtrack once the additional information is revealed, many do not apparently out of commitment to their – original decision (and a tendency to act consistently with it). Interestingly, it does not appear to be commitment rather, once the original decision (commitment) has “blind” – been made, people usually come up with new justifications for it. The decision then stands on a number of thus becoming strong enough to stand even when one of “legs,” those legs is removed (Cialdini, 2009). An interesting study has shown how this technique can be instrumental in achieving socially beneficial goals as well. Residents in Iowa using natural gas for heating were asked to conserve gas and were given some energy-saving tips. The researchers promised one group of people to be named as good fuel-saving citizens in a newspaper publication if they succeed. This had a significant impact: it produced substantial cuts in energy consumption, compared with people who were only offered tips (without the publicity), who did not change their behavior at all. Most notably, the impact lasted even after the participants received a letter backtracking from the promise of publicity informing them – that it will not be possible after all. Indeed, not only that they continued to save gas, the savings even in the period following the letter (Pallak et al., 1980). Apparently, increased once the decision to save gas has been made, new justifications were created saving – money, protecting the environment, self-perception as good and the “a citizen”, etc. – original justification (promise of publicity) that had previously made all the difference was no longer necessary.
part in an experiment, before exposing the information about the inconvenient time (Cialdini et al., 1978). Although obviously they are still free to backtrack once the additional information is revealed, many do not – apparently out of commitment to their original decision (and a tendency to act consistently with it). Interestingly, it does not appear to be “blind” commitment – rather, once the original decision (commitment) has been made, people usually come up with new justifications for it. The decision then stands on a number of “legs,” thus becoming strong enough to stand even when one of those legs is removed (Cialdini, 2009). An interesting study has shown how this technique can be instrumental in achieving socially beneficial goals as well. Residents in Iowa using natural gas for heating were asked to conserve gas and were given some energy-saving tips. The researchers promised one group of people to be named as good fuel-saving citizens in a newspaper publication if they succeed. This had a significant impact: it produced substantial cuts in energy consumption, compared with people who were only offered tips (without the publicity), who did not change their behavior at all. Most notably, the impact lasted even after the participants received a letter backtracking from the promise of publicity – informing them that it will not be possible after all. Indeed, not only that they continued to save gas, the savings even increased in the period following the letter (Pallak et al., 1980). Apparently, once the decision to save gas has been made, new justifications were created – saving money, protecting the environment, self-perception as “a good citizen”, etc. – and the original justification (promise of publicity) that had previously made all the difference was no longer necessary.