One Small Step for Man..One Giant Leap for Mankind; The Consistency Commitment Theory

The Commitment Consistency Theory is a very simple concept. It states that if you request something small of someone and they agree, chances are they will also comply with additional and larger requests in the future. In the article, Using commitments to drive consistency; Enhancing the effectiveness of cause-related marketing communications by Rajiv Vaidy Anathan & Praveen Aggarwal (December 2005), this theory has been dubbed the” foot in the door” technique. The author states that “persuading people to do seemingly harmless requests greatly increases their likelihood of complying with a subsequent, larger request” (Anathan & Aggarwal, 2005). The article specifically addresses environmental consumerism and the effect of cause marketing on actual, significant behavioral changes. “Cause related marketing is the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue producing exchanges that satisfy the organizational and individual objectives.” (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988, as cited in Anathan & Aggarwal, 2005, p. 233) The study conducted explored the effect of commitment consistency on consumer behaviors when products were linked to having a benefit to a “cause”. Unless the “cause” was a product that directly affected the specific issues the consumer cared about, than there was no change in behavior. The results from the test did not support the commitment consistency theory and the “foot in door” technique was shown to be ineffective in this type of marketing. Subjects did not agree to subsequent requests or donate larger amount just because a firm happened to be linked to a “for cause” organization. Although the Commitment Consistency theory has been studied and shown to be effective in many situations, Anathan and Aggarwal suggest that perhaps there are psychological boundaries that influence the effectiveness of the foot in door technique. (Dec 2005)
I have to agree with the author’s analysis. They go into several pages worth of supportive evidence for the Commitment Consistency theory and in the end conclude that the theory does indeed work when consumers value and support the specific cause that appeals to them. However, even though most people consider the environment important, if the choice is between saving money or saving the environment, most people will opt to save money. (Anathan & Aggarwal, 2005 p. 17)
How does this relate to me specifically? I guess I am a little surprised at people’s reaction and response to going green. It may cost a little more to be environmentally conservative…but what is the end price we all pay if we don’t take action now? What if the electric companies or oil companies said “it’s too expensive to change our ways” (which they are trying to do anyway) and did nothing? My concern is that of all the organizations and “for cause” efforts you could be supportive of, environmental should be at the top. But it is no surprise to me. For instance, look at Wal-Mart. An American consumer is more than willing to go buy a hammer for $9 that was made in China, rather than go to the mom and pop hardware store and pay $11 for the same hammer. Yes, they saved money…but what impact does that have on the OVERALL American economy? I think the results from both examples prove how important it is to re-evaluate and prioritize what is considered important…saving a buck or saving the future for our children? Small steps will lead to big changes and the small steps encourage bigger steps in the future.
In any case, this article does not specifically affect me at my place of work as Commitment Consistency theory does not apply to my small business adventures. However, I will say this. I highly admire and regard companies who make contributions to “for cause” agencies and to companies who participate and give back to the community. I think the consistency theory works, but only if the consumer values the specific cause that the organization is supporting. I think one factor not included in this article was the understanding and perception of the “for cause” agencies that were depicted in the studies. Were the “for cause” organizations ones that were well known, reputable or had large Public Relations assisting their image? I think that people are more willing to donate more or buy products that give to a cause if they understand what the “for cause” organization does, how it helps and how their contribution will be spent. I think it is also important that the “for cause” organization appeal to the consumers emotions and make it clear the importance that something be done to change/help the cause.
I think to be an effective leader of our future; one must embrace change. Yes taking small steps toward that change will encourage and provoke larger more meaningful steps in the future, which is why the consistency commitment theory works. I think an effective leader needs to deliver on his or her promises, make changes that look at the overall picture and not the pixel at the bottom of the page. A leader needs to be honest, have moral values and especially create a paradigm shift if something old isn’t working anymore.

Vaidyanathan, R. & Aggarwal, P. (2005). Using commitments to drive consistency: Enhancing the effectiveness of cause-related marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(4), 231-246.
Varadarajan, P. R. & Menon, A. (1988) Cause-related marketing: a co-alignment of marketing strategy
and corporate philanthropy, Journal of Marketing, 52, pp. 58–74.