Final answer:
O true The statement is true: persuaders seeking minor changes are often more successful because individuals are more open to small adjustments and due to the effectiveness of the foot-in-the-door technique and the principle of consistency.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a persuader who seeks only minor changes is usually more successful at achieving them than the speaker who seeks major changes can be considered true. When looking at patterns of influence and persuasion, it's clear that individuals are often more receptive to small, incremental changes as opposed to large-scale alterations. This can be partly explained by the foot-in-the-door technique, which suggests that people are more likely to agree to a larger request if they first agree to a small one. Moreover, the principle of consistency implies that once someone has committed to a behavior, even a small one, they are more likely to follow through with related, larger behaviors. This is seen in political change as well; numerous systemic forces, including the natural bias toward maintaining the status quo, make major changes challenging to enact.
The statement is true. When a persuader seeks only minor changes, they are often more successful at achieving them compared to a speaker who seeks major changes.One reason for this is the foot-in-the-door technique, where the persuader starts by getting the person to agree to a small favor or buy a small item. Once the person has committed to the small request, it becomes easier to ask for a larger favor or purchase.Additionally, people are more likely to conform to near-unanimous consent if they have a single ally. If even one person dissents, the subject is less likely to conform. This supports the idea that it is easier to be a minority of two than a minority of one.