Does “chaining” always work towards compliance gaining? The case of the “but you are free” technique and social proof applied to charitable donation

Introduction: The chaining procedure consists in linking together two or more compliance gaining strategies in order to obtain greater behavioral compliance. Objective: In two studies we tested chaining that included two compliance gaining procedures: the “but you are free” technique (BYAF) and social proof (SP). Method: A total of 2204 passersby were approached in different countries (France, Tunisia, China and Moldavia). They were asked to donate money for cancer research with, respectively, a control formulation, a BYAF formulation, a SP formulation or a BYAF + SP formulation. Results: Observations indicate that chaining did not work because the BYAF + SP condition produced the same behavioral compliance as BYAF or SP separately (studies 1 and 2). Furthermore, we analyzed the participants’ justifications after complying with or rejecting the request and the reasons were substantially the same under each condition (study 2). Conclusion: Failure to observe the chaining process is interpreted through theoretical explanations whereby BYAF and SP are antagonistic.