Understanding the Power and Limits of “Because I Have to Make Copies”
A seemingly trivial request at a copier—“May I use it because I have to make copies?”—provides fascinating insight into human compliance. In a classic 1978 field experiment by Ellen Langer, Arthur Blank, and Benzion Chanowitz, adding this redundant explanation significantly increased agreement rates for small favors but not for larger ones. This subtle phrasing has since been cited widely, but its true impact depends heavily on context.
The study involved 120 adults at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Researchers asked participants to allow copying of either five or twenty pages. A favor was deemed small when the requester asked for fewer pages than the person approached, and big when the request exceeded the other’s pages.
Results showed a striking difference: for small favors, agreement jumped from 60% without any reason to 93% when the redundant explanation “because I have to make copies” was added. However, for big favors, agreement held steady at 24% regardless of the explanation. When the requester said they were in a rush, agreement was similarly high (94%) for small favors but increased only modestly (42%) for big ones. Notably, the larger-favor comparisons did not reach statistical significance, highlighting the boundary conditions of this effect (Langer et al., 1978).
The Crucial Role of Context and Boundaries in Persuasion
The takeaway from this experiment is not that adding any explanation always boosts compliance, but rather that the effectiveness depends on the size and nature of the request. If we ignore these boundaries, we risk overgeneralizing from a very specific finding to broad, inaccurate claims about persuasion.
Imagine testing two versions of a short request in one context and finding one more effective. While this is valuable evidence for that situation, it doesn’t guarantee the same wording will persuade a different audience or succeed when asking for a larger commitment, such as more time, money, or effort.
Similarly, when observed agreement rates are identical—as with the large favors in the copier study—it doesn’t prove the effect is universally absent. It simply means no difference was detected in that sample. This distinction between describing observed outcomes and asserting universal laws is critical for researchers and practitioners alike.
People Often Underestimate How Often Others Say Yes
Separate research by Francis Flynn and Vanessa Lake (2008) sheds light on another aspect of requesting help: people tend to underestimate how frequently others will agree to direct requests. Across multiple studies, individuals expected more refusals than actually occurred, which can discourage them from asking for assistance in the first place.
Flynn noted in a Stanford summary that this misjudgment has practical implications: fear of rejection can prevent people from seeking help that is likely to be granted. One study also revealed that requesters mistakenly believed indirect requests were more effective than straightforward ones, highlighting a disconnect between expectation and reality (Flynn & Lake, 2008).
This research addresses a different challenge than the copier wording: it focuses on the internal hesitation to ask rather than the phrasing of the request itself. Understanding this can help individuals overcome self-imposed barriers to communication.
How Communication Channels Affect Compliance
More recent work by Vanessa Bohns and M. Mahdi Roghanizad (2021) highlights how the medium of communication shapes willingness to comply. Their study, involving 490 requesters and 1,490 respondents, tested requests to proofread half a page of text across in-person, voice, video, and text channels.
Findings revealed that face-to-face requests generated the highest agreement rates, while voice and video calls outperformed text-based communication. Interestingly, there was no clear advantage of video over audio-only calls. People making requests consistently underestimated the power of in-person interactions (Bohns & Roghanizad, 2021).
For anyone adapting classic persuasion strategies to digital environments—such as email campaigns or app notifications—this research serves as a reminder: the communication channel profoundly influences outcomes, even when the message wording stays constant. Timing, proximity, and social cues in face-to-face settings add layers that online formats lack.
When a “Yes” May Not Mean Full Agreement
In 2024, Rachel Schlund, Vanessa Bohns, and Roseanna Sommers explored the social dynamics behind agreeing and refusing requests. Their two studies with 535 participants included asking for an unlocked phone, focusing on how to make refusal easier and more socially acceptable.
They found that providing people with specific phrases to decline increased their sense of freedom to refuse, more so than simply telling them they could say no. This intervention addressed the challenge of finding an appropriate response in the moment (Schlund et al., 2024).
This research underscores an important distinction for workplace communication: securing a “yes” and securing a freely given, authentic agreement are not the same. Simply counting affirmative responses can overlook how comfortable or willing the recipient truly felt. Unlike the copier experiment, these newer studies focus on the social experience around requests rather than the requests themselves.
Practical Advice: Make Explanations Meaningful and Tailored
For managers, product teams, and anyone seeking cooperation, the best approach is to be clear and honest about the request. Providing a genuine reason and explaining what agreeing entails equips the recipient to make informed decisions and offers the requester clearer insight into the response.
When testing wording, it is vital to consider the size and nature of the commitment. Asking for a minute of attention, an afternoon’s work, or an ongoing obligation are not equivalent requests simply because they share similar phrasing.
The copier study’s memorable lesson—that a redundant-sounding explanation can increase compliance—holds true primarily when the favor is small. Its equally memorable limitation reminds us that the magnitude of what is being asked remains a critical factor in persuasion.
Read more Here.
