Mindlessness Revisited: Sequential Request Techniques Foster Compliance by Draining Self-control Resources

The present research extends previous findings suggesting that sequential request techniques, such as the Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) or Door-in-the-Face (DITF) technique, are primarily effective under conditions conducive of mindlessness. We forward that this mindlessness may be the product of the influence technique itself. More specifically, based on the notion of self-control as a limited resource, we hypothesize that actively responding to the initial request-phase of a FITD-compliance gaining procedure drains the target of his/her self-regulatory resources, thus creating the mindlessness so often observed in social influence settings. This resource depletion opens the door for compliance with the target request. The results were in line with these expectations. More specifically, we observed that active responding to an initial request of a FITD technique reduced the availability of self-regulatory resources. This state of resource depletion mediated the effect of the technique on behavioral compliance. In addition, the results of this study ruled out the alternate explanation that the effects were attributable to mood or a general tendency for acquiescence

The reaction in counter-action: how Meisner technique and active analysis complement each other

This article is an investigation into the difference between reaction and counter-action. The question arose during my experience of Active Analysis at the Stanislavski Acting Laboratory in California Riverside University. In the Meisner technique the emphasis lies on instinctive reaction, whereas in Stanislavski’s Active Analysis the action and counter-action are emphasised. Counter-action can be seen as the force working against the main action of the scene creating conflict. Having extensive knowledge of reaction, and experience of counter-action, it became important to understand the difference between the two concepts and the importance of both in actor training and application to text. Through research into Action-Perception theory, self-regulation and motivation, I attempt to dissect the fundamental discrepancies between the two principles. My findings show that reaction stems from impulse and instinct, whereas counter-action is rooted in motivation. When motivation and instinct are in conflict, self-regulation will attempt to supress the impulse and over-ride it with an alternative counter-action more suited to the overall motivation. As self-regulation is a limited resource, prolonged use will make this harder to control. Emotion control draws on the same limited resource as self-regulation. Suggesting that emotion regulation would be affected by a conflict in instinct and motivation. These conclusions have a strong impact on how emotions are manifested and produced in actors and warrant a re-evaluation of how actors reach emotional connection to the given circumstance, as well as how emotion is viewed and engaged with in actor training in general