New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

In-Person Requests Are More Effective Than Electronic Ones

People respond better to face-to-face requests than e-mails

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When you need a favor, there's nothing more convenient than shooting off an e-mail or two. It also saves you the awkwardness of in-person pleading. Just don't expect the same results.

Two new studies show that people nonetheless believe e-mail requests are just as effective as asking face-to-face. In the first study, published in the March issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 participants were told they would have to ask 10 strangers, either in person or via e-mail, to complete a survey for no pay. People in both groups said they expected one in two strangers to agree, and both were wildly wrong. More than 70 percent of people approached in person complied; among those who received e-mails, the response rate was just 2 percent.

In a second study, people were recruited to complete a paid survey via e-mail or in person. Before they began the paid survey, they were offered the chance to complete a second, unpaid one. Again, canvassers underestimated in-person compliance and overestimated e-mail responses to the unpaid task. The e-mailers had an inflated idea of how much people trusted them and how much empathy they garnered. “If people want to have more effective e-mail messages, they have to include more personal information to facilitate building initial trust,” says Mahdi Roghanizad, a business professor at Western University in Ontario, Canada, who co-wrote the paper.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What about soliciting a friend or colleague? Face-to-face is still best, preliminary data suggest. “When a friend comes to you and asks in person,” Roghanizad says, “it means they are in serious need or respect you enough to pay a visit.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe