If You Need Help, Just Ask: Underestimating Compliance With Direct Requests for Help
Flynn & Lake (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1)
We use this paper in 13 places in the academy · 7 stated limits
What the study found
In lab and field studies, people underestimated how often others would say yes to a direct request, by as much as 50%.
People consistently underestimate how willing strangers are to say yes to a direct request. They think too much about the effort they are asking for, and forget how awkward it feels to say no.
People underestimate, by up to half, how likely others are to say yes to a direct and specific request.
People underestimated by as much as 50% how often others agree to a direct request. So when you ask, the most common surprise is that they say yes.
See 1 more ways we describe the same finding
In lab and field studies, people underestimated, by as much as half, how likely others were to say yes to a direct and specific request.
What the study cannot prove
The requests were for help, such as directions, borrowing a phone or a favour. They were not invitations. The result held across those settings, but the study says nothing about asking somebody out.
Limits we note on the exercises
The study looked at requests for help and favours, not invitations. Applying it to invitations is our own step.
Again, the study looked at requests for help, not for a date. The result points in a useful direction, but it is not proof.
The study looked at requests for help and small favours, not discounts or phone numbers. Applying it to those is our own step.
The study looked at favours between strangers, not fees or contracts. We apply the direction of the error, not the exact numbers.
The study looked at requests for help, not invitations. The result points in a useful direction, but it is not proof.
The study looked at requests for help and favours between strangers, not invitations. Applying it to invitations is our own step, and we say so.
The study looked at requests for help, not for a date. The result points in a useful direction, but it is not proof.
Where we use it
We use this paper in 13 places in the academy. If the paper turned out to be wrong, we would have to change everything in this list. Some of the exercise instructions below are part of Gold. You can read every finding for free.
In the topics · 8
07 — The time-bounded invitation
Topic 01 · First Contact10 — Ask for a recommendation
Topic 04 · Out of the Friendzone04 — Ask for something specific
Topic 05 · Rejection Immunity02 — Collect one no on purpose
Topic 10 · The Monroe Method09 — Ask for the real number
Topic 11 · The Written Voice07 — Name a time, not sometime
Topic 18 · The Unanswered Message08 — Text to plan, two messages
Topic 19 · Making Friends08 — Make a small, specific invitation
In the videos · 3
Other papers used in the same places
These papers are used in the same topics and videos as this one. That does not mean the papers agree with each other. It only means that the same exercises use both.
A Cognitive Model of Social Phobia
Clark & Wells (1995)The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?
Boothby, Cooney, Sandstrom & Clark (2018)It Doesn't Hurt to Ask: Question-Asking Increases Liking
Huang, Yeomans, Brooks, Minson & Gino (2017)Post-Event Processing in Social Anxiety
Rachman, Grüter-Andrew & Shafran (2000)Becoming Friends by Chance
Back, Schmukle & Egloff (2008)Pupil Dilation as an Index of Preferred Mutual Gaze Duration
Binetti, Harrison, Coutrot, Johnston & Mareschal (2016)Research
A real study. We tell you what it found, how many people were in it, and what it can't prove.
You are free to read, link to and quote this page. If we claim more than this paper shows, please tell us at contact@suaviq.com. We read every correction, and corrections help us more than any other email.