Abstract
We examine how to structure requests to help people feel they can say no (or yes) more voluntarily. Specifically, we examine the effect of having the requester provide the request-target with an explicit phrase they can use to decline requests. Part of the difficulty of saying no is finding the words to do so when put on the spot. Providing individuals with an explicit script they can use to decline a request may help override implicit scripts and norms of politeness that generally dictate compliance. This should make individuals feel more comfortable refusing requests and make agreement feel more voluntary. Hence, we hypothesized that telling people how to say no (by providing them with an explicit script) would make compliance decisions feel more voluntary above and beyond merely telling them they can say no. Across two experimental lab studies (Nā=ā535), we find support for this prediction.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Not all compliance is equal. Although the behavior appears the same from the outside, people can agree more or less voluntarily with a request. In other words, they can enthusiastically consent or reluctantly comply1,2, give or give in3,4.
It is advantageous to both requesters and request targets to ensure that compliance is not simply the result of giving in to social pressure. Targets who feel forced or āguiltedā into complying with requests can feel regret, frustration, helplessness5, and resentment6,7,8. Ultimately, they may provide lower-quality help4,9 or back out of their commitments at a less convenient time for the requester once their obligations become more concrete.10 Moreover, both requesters and targets may find themselves in uncomfortable situations if targets begrudgingly agree to problematic romantic11,12 or unethical13 requests.
All of this suggests numerous benefits for both parties in identifying methods of soliciting voluntary consent, not mere acquiescence or compliance1,2. Yet, this is difficult to accomplish. People often agree with requestsāeven those they would rather refuseābecause it is so hard to say no. Saying no is a face-threatening act14,15, which can feel deeply uncomfortable and socially risky16,17. Denying a request risks insinuating something negative about the requester or their request18. Ultimately, targets of requests feel obligated to follow implicit scripts and norms of politeness and respect that presume compliance19,20,21,22.
Considerable research has explored strategies to help targets overcome the difficulties of saying no, such as the use of self-affirmations23, refusal frames24,25, and āpositive noās,ā or āyes, no, yesā strategies26, among others5,27,28. However, such interventions place the burden of saying no, while maintaining face, entirely on targets. Further, these interventions can be questionably effective and impractical, often requiring targets to come up with elaborate multi-part responses26 that are unrealistic to implement when targets are put on the spot in the moment.
As an alternative approach, the current research examines strategies requesters can use to formulate requests that, rather than merely secure compliance, leave targets feeling able to make their own genuinely voluntary choices. One common strategy requesters use is to add something along the lines of ābut you are free to say noā at the end of a request. However, research finds that āverbally recognizing the targetās freedom to say ānoāā tends to increase compliance29 and that emphasizing the targetās āright to refuseā has little effect on targetsā feelings of freedom to say no30.
We hypothesize that statements that seek to reassure targets about the lack of material consequences of refusal (e.g., no penalty for refusal) fail to address targetsā concerns about the possible social consequences of refusalānamely, the possibility that they will offend their interaction partner by violating norms of politeness and respect19,20,21. Thus, statements emphasizing that āyou are free to accept or refuseā or that you have āthe right to refuseā fail to dispel the implicit scripts that demand cooperation in the form of compliance. In other words, even if targets are reassured that they can say no, the real problem is knowing how to do so graciously.
Although research suggests that using an indirect communication channel, such as email, can elicit more voluntary compliance31,32,33, we are focused on face-to-face requests, precisely because they are more difficult to decline. Finding the words to graciously refuse a request (and words that targets know requesters perceive as gracious) may be especially difficult when one is put on the spot during a face-to-face request.
Therefore, the current research tests an intervention in which requesters provide targets with information about how to say no, thereby supplanting, or at least diminishing the power of, the implicit script dictating compliance with an explicit script offering a (still polite) alternative. Specifically, participants in two lab experiments were asked to respond to a highly intrusive requestāone most people say they would prefer to decline30āusing one of two scripts. In one, requesters assured targets that they could refuse the request. In the other, they provided targets with specific words to communicate refusal. In both studies, the latter intervention led participants to experience their decision as more voluntaryāthat is, participants reported feeling freer to say no.
Open practices and data availability statement
In all studies, the sample size, or data collection stopping point, was determined before data collection began, and all analyses were two-tailed tests performed after data collection was completed. We report all variables, manipulations, measures, data exclusions, and sample size rationales. All studies (except for the pilot study) were pre-registered, and the data, code, materials, and pre-registrations for each study are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/vs3rh/?view_only=1b3baadc6f4e4fe4a30a8089f11b83b7). We report all pre-registered results. Here we reverse the order in which our pre-registration discusses our two key dependent measures (behavioral compliance and freedom to say no). This is due to the fact that our results yield stronger conclusions about how the intervention affected feelings of freedom than about how it influenced behavioral compliance. However, there were no deviations from our pre-registered analyses or predictions. This research was conducted in accordance with established ethical guidelines and was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Cornell University.
Study 1: Can an intervention increase how free targets feel responding to an intrusive request?
To investigate whether an intervention on the request side could increase how free people feel to say no, we asked participants to unlock their password-protected smartphones and hand them over to a student experimenter to look through in another room. Although this kind of request may sound outrageous, in reality, people regularly agree to such requests. For instance, people agree to hand over their passwords and other sensitive data to social engineers34,35 and even engage in acts of vandalism at othersā behest13.
In previous studies using this paradigm30,36, participants overwhelmingly complied with this request while simultaneously reporting they would prefer to refrain from complying. Importantly, explicitly advising participants they could refuse the search without penalty did not increase their feelings of freedom to decline the request in these studies. In the current study, we attempted to increase participantsā subjective feelings of freedom by offering them specific language they could use to communicate refusal.
Method
Participants
We recruited 198 adult participants from a large research university in the United States. The participants completed the study as an opportunity for extra credit in participating courses. As it was not possible to determine how many participants would choose to participate, we aimed to collect as many participants as possible within a pre-registered, pre-determined period (i.e., until the end of the fall semester). Based on our pre-registered exclusion criteria, we excluded participants who (a) did not have a phone, (b) had an inaccessible phone (e.g., out of batteries, set to a language other than English), (c) recognized the experimenter from another context, or (d) reported having heard details of the study before participating, yielding a final sample of 174 participants (58% identified as women, 40.2% as men, andĀ 1.7% as non-binary/gender non-conforming; 5.2% as Black/African American, 32.2% as Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, 42% as White/European American, 4% as Latino/Hispanic American, 0.6% as Middle Eastern/Arab American, and 16% as Biracial/Mixed-Race; Mageā=ā18.75, SDageā=ā1.98). A sensitivity analysis using the pwr R package37 revealed that this sample size carries an 80% chance of detecting effect sizes of dā=ā0.43 and Ī¦ā=ā0.21 (or larger) for each dependent variable (behavioral compliance and freedom to say no).
Procedure
We randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions: the āright to refuseā consent request (control) condition, which informed participants of their right to refuse, or the āhow to refuseā consent request (intervention) condition, which offered participants a script informing them how to refuse. Specifically, all participants arrived at the lab and were greeted by an experimenter, who was always one of two undergraduate research assistants unaware ofĀ the hypothesis and trained to follow a script. To participants in the āright to refuseā condition (nā=ā86), the experimenter stated (differences between conditions are indicated in italics),
Before we begin the study, can you please unlock your phone and hand it to me? Iāll just need to take your phone outside of the room for a moment to check for some things. If youād like to refuse, you may do so. Refusing will not affect your payment or participation in the study.
To participants in the āhow to refuseā condition (nā=ā88), the experimenter stated,
Before we begin the study, can you please unlock your phone and hand it to me? Iāll just need to take your phone outside of the room for a moment to check for some things. If youād like to refuse, please say the words, āIād rather not.ā Refusing will not affect your payment or participation in the study.
After delivering the script, the experimenter held out a small basket and waited for the research participant to hand over their phone. If the participant surrendered their unlocked phone, the experimenter took it out of the room and waited five seconds before re-entering the room and returning it. If the participant declined to allow the search, the experimenter immediately moved on to the next phase of the study.
Next, participants filled out a questionnaire that included a series of questions that together comprised our measure of how free they felt to say ānoā to the request. Specifically, participants were asked, āHow easy was it/would it have been to say ānoā to this request?ā āHow comfortable did you feel/would you have felt saying ānoā to this request?ā and āHow free did you feel/would you have felt saying ānoā to this request?ā (Ī±ā=ā0.80) and responded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely). While the participants filled out the questionnaire (see OSF for full materials), the experimenter filled out a form indicating whether the participant had complied with the request, defined as handing over their unlocked phone. Importantly, and following our Institutional Review Boardās approval, participants consented to have their data used after they responded to the request to hand over their phone to avoid any confounds that may emerge from obtaining informed consent beforehand.
Results
As predicted, participants felt freer to say no in the āhow to refuseā (intervention) condition (Mā=ā4.71, SDā=ā1.31), 95% CI [4.43, 4.99], than in the āright to refuseā (control) condition (Mā=ā4.25, SDā=ā1.45), 95% CI [3.94, 4.56], t(172)ā=ā2.20, pā=ā0.029, dā=ā0.33, 95% CI [0.03, 0.63] (see Fig.Ā 1).
We did not find a significant difference in the number of participants who complied with the request in the āhow to refuseā condition (70%) as compared to the āright to refuseā condition (80%), Ļ2(1, Nā=ā174)ā=ā2.24, pā=ā0.135, Ī¦ā=ā0.11, 95% CI [ā0.04, 0.26].
Study 2: Higher powered replication
While the intervention in Study 1 effectively increased participantsā feelings of freedom to say no, the interventionās effect on behavioral compliance was less clear. The difference between conditions was not significant; while fewer participants complied with the request in the intervention condition, the difference was not large enough to rule out a null effect. At the same time, the study lacked the power to conclude that the intervention had no effect on behavior. Thus, in Study 2, we recruited a larger sample of participants and modified the script to increase the contrast between the two conditions. We conducted a pilot study to determine the appropriate sample size for Study 2 using this modified script (reported below).
Pilot study
We recruited 40 participants from a large research university in the United States. Because this was a pilot study, we aimed to recruit 25 participants per cell. We followed our four pre-registered exclusion criteria from Study 1, yielding a final sample of 38 participants (73.7% identified as women, 21.1% as men, andĀ 5.2% did not report on their gender; 7.9% as Black/African American, 55.3% as Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, 31.6% as White/European American, and 5.2% as Biracial/Mixed-Race; Mageā=ā23.24, SDageā=ā5.14). A sensitivity analysis using the pwr R package37 revealed that this sample size carries an 80% chance of detecting effect sizes of dā=ā0.94 and Ī¦ā=ā0.46 (or larger) for each dependent variable.
The procedure of the pilot mirrored that of Study 1, except we revised the experimenterās request to differentiate the conditions more starkly. The new scripts were designed to reinforce the manipulation by referring to the key sentence earlier in the script and in the last sentence while keeping the manipulation subtle enough to avoid demand effects. Importantly, as in Study 1, participants gave informed consent after responding to the main request. The modified āright to refuseā (control) condition script stated:
Before we begin the study, can you please unlock your phone and hand it to me? Iāll just need to take your phone outside of the room for a moment to check for some things. As a participant in a research study, you have the right to refuse at any time. I will tell you more about your right to refuse if you choose to. Refusing will not affect your payment or participation in the study. If you would like to refuse, you may do so now.
The modified āhow to refuseā (intervention) condition script stated:
Before we begin the study, can you please unlock your phone and hand it to me? Iāll just need to take your phone outside of the room for a moment to check for some things. As a participant in a research study, you have the right to refuse at any time. I will tell you more about how you can refuse if you choose to. Refusing will not affect your payment or participation in the study. If you would like to refuse, you can let me know now by saying the words, āIād rather not,ā or āNo, thank you.ā
As in Study 1, after reading the appropriate script for the given condition, the experimenter held out a small basket and waited for the participant to hand over their phone.
We randomlyĀ assigned a total of 19 participants to the āright to refuseā (control) condition and 19 participants to the āhow to refuseā (intervention) condition. Replicating the results of Study 1,Ā participants felt freer to say no in the āhow to refuseā condition (Mā=ā4.89, SDā=ā1.15), 95% CI [4.34, 5.45], then in the āright to refuseā condition (Mā=ā3.88, SDā=ā1.45), 95% CI [3.18, 4.57], t(36)ā=ā2.40, pā=ā0.022, dā=ā0.78, 95% CI [0.10, 1.46]. Further, in this pilot study, fewer participants complied with the request in the āhow to refuseā condition (58%) than in the āright to refuseā condition (95%), Ļ2(1, Nā=ā38)ā=ā7.13, pā=ā0.008, Ī¦ā=ā0.43, 95% CI [0.12, 0.75].These pilot results provided evidence that the revised scripts effectively increased the strength of the manipulation. We used these results in combination with the results from Study 1 to determine the sample size in Study 2.
Method
Participants
We recruited 345 participants from two large research universities in the United States. Based on the effect sizes observed in Study 1 and the pilot study (along with resource constraints), we aimed to recruit 300 participants (150 participants per cell). Specifically, we pre-registered that we would continue to recruit participants until we reached our target sample size or until May 19, 2023 (the end of the spring semester), whichever came first. Applying our pre-registered exclusion criteria resulted in a final sample of 323 participants (68.1% identified as women, 28.7% as men, 0.3% as transgender, 1.9% as non-binary/gender non-conforming, andĀ 1% preferred not to respond regarding their gender; 5.3% as Black/African American, 45.5% as Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, 32.8% as White/European American, 4.3% as Latino/Hispanic American, 1.2% as Middle Eastern/Arab American, and 10.9% as Biracial/Mixed-Race; Mageā=ā22.63, SDageā=ā6.43). A sensitivity analysis using the pwr R package37 revealed that this sample size has an 80% chance of detecting effect sizes of dā=ā0.32 and Ī¦ā=ā0.16 (or larger) for each dependent variable. The procedure in Study 2 was identical to that in the pilot study. Consistent with our pre-registration, we do not include pilot study participants in the results reported here.
Results
As predicted and replicating the results from Study 1, participants felt freer to say no in the āhow to refuseā (intervention) condition (Mā=ā4.83, SDā=ā1.17), 95% CI [4.65, 5.01], than in the āright to refuseā (control) condition (Mā=ā4.51, SDā=ā1.47), 95% CI [4.29, 4.74], t(321)ā=ā2.14, pā=ā0.033, dā=ā0.24, 95% CI [0.02, 0.46] (see Fig.Ā 2).
Once again, the difference in behavioral compliance between the āhow to refuseā condition (78%) and the āright to refuseā condition (83%) was not statistically significant, Ļ2(1, Nā=ā323)ā=ā1.67, pā=ā0.197, Ī¦ā=ā0.072, 95% CIā=ā[ā0.04, 0.18]. However, as the effect was ultimately smaller than we had estimated from our pilot study, we were once again underpowered to conclusively determine that there was no effect on behavior compliance.
To investigate why the pilot results differed from the Study 2 results, which used the same materials and procedure, we ran several analyses on the demographic variables we collected (the only individual difference variables that were included in the study). These analyses did not reveal any differences in demographic composition between the conditions within each study and were ultimately unable to explain the difference in effect size. These exploratory analyses are reported in the SOM.
To try to identify the size of the effect more precisely38,39, we conducted an internal meta-analysis across the studies for each dependent variable. In the main text, we report the results of these internal meta-analyses which includeĀ Studies 1 and 2 and omit the pilot study (out of concern that the pilot study may be subject to small sample size bias). In the SOM, we report these same analyses withĀ all availableĀ data, includingĀ the pilot study. When the pilot studyĀ data is included, the test for the overall effect is significant for both dependent variablesĀ (see SOM).
Internal meta-analysis
Study 2 replicated the finding from Study 1ātelling participants how to refuse led participants to feel freer to refuse than telling participants they had the right to refuse. As described earlier, this represents significant progress in the effort to design choice environments that leave people feeling genuinely able to make a free choice. If compliance is to be a meaningful expression of peopleās felt preferences rather than the product of a decision environment thatāwhile providing nominal choiceāultimately limits how free people really feel to act on their wishes, identifying interventions that improve feelings of freedom is paramount.
Still, Study 2 left us unable to conclusively settle the question of whether the āhow to refuseā intervention affects compliance behavior in addition to subjective feelings of freedom. Although we based Study 2ās sample size on Study 1 and a pilot study in which compliance behavior was significantly affected by the intervention, our pre-registered study again yielded an effect that was too small to rule out the null hypothesis that the intervention did not affect behavior.
Thus, it appears that if this intervention alters compliance behavior, the effect is likely to be small. Notably, an intervention that increases subjective voluntariness (as indexed by the feelings of freedom dependent measure) while simultaneously leaving rates of compliance unaffectedĀ (as measured by the behavioral compliance measure) is likely to be viewed favorably by practitioners, such as a charitable organization that seeks to solicit donations in a low-pressure manner (which leaves potential donors feeling genuinely free to refuse) without significantly decreasing donation rates.
In an attempt to draw a more conclusive answer to the question of whether the intervention affects compliance behavior, we conducted an internal meta-analysis of Studies 1 and 2 on both dependent measures (freedom to say no and behavioral compliance). Internal meta-analyses can be helpful when the effect size detected is small and individual studies may be underpowered38, and they can also increase the precision of estimates39.
Using the metafor R package40, we first meta-analyzed the results of our primary measure of interest: participantsā feelings of freedom to refuse the request. Across all studies, participants in the āhow to refuseā (intervention) condition felt freer to say no than participants in the āright to refuseā (control) condition, dā=ā0.27, Zā=ā3.03, pā=ā0.002, 95% CI [0.10, 0.45] (see Fig.Ā 3).
We then meta-analyzed the results of the behavioral compliance measure. Collapsed across Studies 1 and 2 (but not including the pilot study participants), the effect by condition on behavioral compliance was non-significant, ORā=ā1.54, Zā=ā1.93, pā=ā0.053, 95% CI [0.99, 2.37] (see Fig.Ā 4).
In sum, in these meta-analyses, the effect on behavioral compliance is not significant (pā=ā0.053), but the effect on subjective voluntariness (feelings of freedom to say no) appears robust.
General discussion
We identified a way of structuring requests that allows requesters to ask for what they want while simultaneously decreasing the social pressure on targets to comply. Specifically, in two pre-registered, experimental lab studies, we found that providing request targets with information about how to communicate refusal rather than simply reassuring them that they can refuse made targets feel freer to decide whether to agree with a request. Unlike simply reassuring targets of their right to refuse, offering targets specific language they can use to communicate refusal likely overrides implicit scripts that dictate compliance19,20,21. Consequently, targets feel more comfortable refusing requests, making their decision of whether or not to comply feel more voluntary.
Unlike previous research on social influence and compliance19,41,42, our findings do not necessarily carry clear implications for behavioral compliance, but rather suggest implications for the psychology underlying compliance, or the extent to which a target feels as if saying no is a genuinely available option. This is important because the same behaviorācompliance with a requestācan be experienced as more or less voluntary, which carries implications for distinguishing genuine consent from mere compliance1,2.
The current research also extends past work examining strategies to help request targets overcome the difficulties of saying no5,27,28. Research in this area has focused on tactics targets must deploy to overcome the difficulties of saying no. In contrast, our intervention represents a tactic requesters can deploy in seeking to ensure voluntary agreement rather than acquiescence.
There are several avenues for future research that build on the current findings. For one, these studies did not manipulate relational or power dynamics between requesters and targets, which may be fruitful avenues for future research. Both power43 and status44 have been found to increase compliance with requests, suggesting they could be potential moderators of our effect. For example, it is possible that when request targets hold less power than requesters, overriding politeness norms with a script of how to say no may prove inadequate to overcome the pressure lower-power individuals feel to acquiesce. On the flip side, research has shown that power disinhibits the pressure people feel to abide by social norms and scripts45,46. These disinhibiting effects may make such interventions unnecessary for high-power request targets, who may already feel empowered to say no.
In addition, peopleās experience of compliance as more or less voluntary may have important downstream consequences. For example, as theorized by Bohns & Schlund (2020), feeling pressured to comply with workplace requests may erode a sense of fairness, autonomy, and trust in the organization. More broadly, feeling as if one has no choice but to comply may lead to feelings of regret. Future research should investigate these and other possible downstream consequences that may result from securing (or failing to secure) voluntary compliance.
References
Bohns, V. K. & Schlund, R. Consent is an organizational behavior issue. Res. Org. Behav. 40, 100ā138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2021.100138 (2020).
Bohns, V. K. Toward a psychology of consent. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17(4), 1093ā1110 (2022).
Cain, D. M., Dana, J. & Newman, G. E. Giving versus giving in. Acad. Manag. Ann. 8(1), 505ā533. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.911576 (2014).
DellaVigna, S., List, J. A. & Malmendier, U. Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Q. J. Econ. 127(1), 1ā56. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr050 (2012).
Patrick, V. The Power of Saying No: The New Science of How to Say No That Puts You in Charge of Your Life (Sourcebooks, 2023).
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M. & Heatherton, T. F. Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychol. Bull. 115(2), 243ā267 (1994).
McClintock, C. G., Kramer, R. M. & Keil, L. J. Equity and social exchange in human relationships. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 17, 183ā228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60120-3 (1984).
Rubin, J. & Shaffer, W. F. Some interpersonal effects of imposing guilt versus eliciting altruism. Couns. Values 31, 190ā193 (1987).
Dolinski, D. & Nawrat, R. āFear-then-reliefā procedure for producing compliance: Beware when the danger is over. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 34(1), 27ā50 (1998).
Stephan, E., Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98(2), 268ā280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016960 (2010).
Bohns, V. K. & DeVincent, L. A. Rejecting unwanted romantic advances is more difficult than suitors realize. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 10(8), 1102ā1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618769880 (2019).
Joel, S., Teper, R. & MacDonald, G. People overestimate their willingness to reject potential romantic partners by overlooking their concern for other people. Psychol. Sci. 25(12), 2233ā2240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614552828 (2014).
Bohns, V. K., Roghanizad, M. M. & Xu, A. Z. Underestimating our influence over othersā unethical behavior and decisions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40(3), 348ā362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213511825 (2014).
Goffman, E. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order (Basic Books, 1971).
Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior (Pantheon Books, 1982).
Bohns, V. K. (Mis)Understanding our influence over others: A review of the underestimation-of-compliance effect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25(2), 119ā123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415628011 (2016).
Flynn, F. J. & Lake, V. K. B. If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95(1), 128ā143. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.128 (2008).
Sah, S., Loewenstein, G. & Cain, D. Insinuation anxiety: Concern that advice rejection will signal distrust after conflict of interest disclosures. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45(7), 1099ā1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218805991 (2019).
Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Collins, 2007).
Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D. & Schlƶsser, T. Why people trust: Solved puzzles and open mysteries. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28(4), 366ā371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838255 (2019).
Langer, E. J., Blank, A. & Chanowitz, B. The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of āplacebicā information in interpersonal interaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 36(6), 635ā642 (1978).
Sabini, J., Siepmann, M. & Stein, J. Target article: āThe really fundamental attribution error in social psychological researchā. Psychol. Inq. 12(1), 1ā15. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1201_01 (2001).
Gu, R. et al. Be strong enough to say no: Self-affirmation increases rejection to unfair offers. Front. Psychol. 7, 1824. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01824 (2016).
Patrick, V. M. & Hagtvedt, H. āI donātā versus āI canātā: When empowered refusal motivates goal-directed behavior. J. Consum. Res. 39(2), 371ā381 (2012).
Patrick, V. M. & Hagtvedt, H. How to say ānoā: Conviction and identity attributions in persuasive refusal. Int. J. Res. Mark. 29(4), 390ā394 (2012).
Ury, W. The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes (Bantam Books, 2007).
Babcock, L., Peyser, B., Vesterlund, L. & Weingart, L. The No Club: Putting a Stop to Womenās Dead-End Work (Simon & Schuster, 2022).
Tewfik, B., Kundro, T. & Tetlock, P. The help-declinerās dilemma: How to decline requests for help at work without hurting oneās image. Acad. Manag. Proc. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11364abstract (2018).
Carpenter, C. J. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the āBut You Are Freeā compliance-gaining technique. Commun. Stud. 64(1), 6ā17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.727941 (2013).
Sommers, R. & Bohns, V. K. The voluntariness of voluntary consent: Consentsearches and the psychology of compliance. Yale Law J 128(7), 1962ā2033 (2019).
Roghanizad, M. M. & Bohns, V. K. Ask in person: Youāre less persuasive than you think over email. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69, 223ā226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.10.002 (2017).
Roghanizad, M. M. & Bohns, V. K. Should I ask over Zoom, phone, email, or in person? Communication channel and predicted versus actual compliance. Soc. Psychol. Person. Sci. 13(7), 1163ā1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211063259 (2022).
Sah, S., Loewenstein, G. & Cain, D. M. The burden of disclosure: Increased compliance with distrusted advice. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 104(2), 289ā304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030527 (2013).
Mitnick, K. Ghost in the Wires: My Adventures as the Worldās Most Wanted Hacker (Hachette UK, 2011).
Sagarin, B. J. & Mitnick, K. D. The path of least resistance. In Six Degrees of Social Influence: Science, Application, and the Psychology of Robert Cialdini (eds Kenrick, D. T. et al.) 27ā38 (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Sommers, R., & Bohns, V. K. (2024). Consent searches and underestimation of compliance: Robustness to type of search, consequences of search, and demographic sample. J. Empir. Legal Stud. (Forthcoming).
Champely, S. pwr: Basic functions for power analysis. R package version 1.3-0 (2020). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr.
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A. & Rosenthal, R. Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc. Person. Psychol. Compass 10(10), 535ā549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267 (2016).
Cumming, G. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychol. Sci. 25, 7ā29 (2014).
Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the meta for package. J. Stat. Softw. 36(3), 1ā48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 (2010).
Forgas, J. P. Asking nicely? The effects of mood on responding to more or lesspolite requests. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24(2), 173ā185 (1998).
Freedman, J. L., Wallington, S. A. & Bless, E. Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 7(2, Pt.1), 117ā124 (1967).
Michener, H. A. & Burt, M. R. Components of āauthorityā as determinants of compliance. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 31(4), 606ā614. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077080 (1975).
Bushman, B. J. The effects of apparel on compliance: A field experiment with a female authority figure. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 14(3), 459ā467 (1988).
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Dubois, D. & Rucker, D. D. Power and morality. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 15ā19 (2015).
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Rink, F. & Galinsky, A. D. To have control over or to befree from others? The desire for power reflects a need for autonomy. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42(4), 498ā512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216634064 (2016).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Michelle Cao, Jacob Johnson, Danna Long, Emily Mason, Olivia Perrier, Joshua Samuel, Claire Wang, and Madhulika Shastry.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.S. Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Writing-Original Draft, WritingāReview and Editing. R.S. Conceptualization, Methodology, WritingāReview and Editing. V.B. Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, WritingāReview and Editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schlund, R., Sommers, R. & Bohns, V.K. Giving people the words to say no leads them to feel freer to say yes. Sci Rep 14, 576 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50532-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50532-3
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.