The Four Walls technique applied to citizen participation: An exploration of consistency effects

Introduction

Citizens turn away from public debates because they are skeptical about their real impact. At the same time, although they do not know how to go about it, they are expressing a strong demand for participation. Compliance without pressure, and in particular Four Walls or Repeated Acquiescence (Cialdini and Sagarin, 2005), seem to be relevant tools if we want people to attend and then participate in debates.

Objectives

The aims of this article were: (1) to draw on this technique to develop an engagement strategy designed to bring people into the debate, and (2) to explore the theoretical explanations in terms of consistency used in this paradigm.

Method

Three studies were conducted (study 1, n = 60, study 2, n = 120, study 3, n = 102). Participants were invited to take part in an exchange meeting on social issues. The technique was systematically manipulated: cognitive consistency with the request vs. self-consistency (studies 1, 2 and 3) vs. unrelated to the request (study 2).

Results

The results of studies 1 and 2 show that the Four Walls technique is effective only when it is consistent with the request. The results of study 3 show that perceptions of exchange meetings are structured according to the type of consistency mobilized and the level of behavioral intention.

Conclusion

The technique appears to be a promising solution for fostering citizen mobilization within public debates. The adoption of this technique by concertation professionals could play an essential role in revitalising spaces for democratic expression in our societies. Nevertheless, the principle of consistency mobilized in this paradigm should be used with caution, at the risk of causing deleterious effects on the ability of individuals to truly exchange and listen to each other in these spaces.