The present study reports on three separate field experiments that investigated, respectively, the foot-in-the-door (FITD) compliance induction procedure in three cultures (Paris, France; Frankfurt, West Germany; and Amsterdam, the Netherlands). A three-group design was employed in all three settings: a small request only, a large request only (control), and a small request followed by a large request. Ratings of the size of the request, normative expectations of what others would be likely to do in response to a similar request, and actual compliance behavior were obtained. Across all three experiments, the small request was rated as small and the large request was rated as large. Compliance behavior and normative expectations varied systematically as a function of request condition. An FlTD effect, however, emerged only in the Amsterdam sample. The findings were discussed in relation to request norms, self-perception theory, a probabilistic model of social psychology, and the ideological underpinnings of FITD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agresti. A. , & Agresti, B. F. (1979). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Santa Clara, CA: Dollen.
2.
Arbuthnot. J. , & Lingg, S. (1975). A comparison of French and American environmental behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes. International Journal of Psychology, 10, 275-281.
3.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
4.
Beaman, A. L. , Cole, C. M., Preston, M., Klentz, B., & Steblay, N. (1983). Fifteen years of fool-in-the-door research: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 2. 181-196.
5.
Beck. A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
6.
Bem. D. (1962). Self-perception. An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200.
7.
Bem. D. (1970)). Beliefs, attitudes and human affairs. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
8.
Blalock. H. M. (1979). Social statistics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Bohr. N. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature. 121, 580-590.
10.
Brandt. L. W. (1973). The physics of the physicist and the physics of the psychologist. International Journal of Psychology, 8, 61-72.
11.
Bransfolrd, J. D. (1979). Hucman cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
12.
Brehm. J. W. (1972). Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
13.
Costner. H. L. (1965). Criteria for measures of association. American Sociological Review, 3)0341-353.
14.
DeJong, W. (1979). An examination of self-perception mediation of the foot-in-the-door effect. Journal of Personiality and Social Psychology, 37, 2221-2239.
15.
Dillard. J. P. , Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, J0, 461-488.
16.
Doms. M. . & Avermaet, E. V. (1980). Majority influence, minority influence and conversion behavior: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 283-292.
17.
Eisenberg. N. . Boehnke, K., Schuhler, P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (1985). The development of prosocial behavior and cognitions in German children. Journal of Cross-Cultutral Psychology; 16, 69-82.
18.
Ellis. A. , & Greiger, R. (1977). Handbook of rational-emotive therapy. New York: Springer.
19.
Forsyth. D. (1980). The functions of attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 184-189.
20.
Freedman. J. L. , & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal al of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.
21.
Goldfried. M. R. , Decenteceo, E. T., & Weinberg, L. (1974). Systematic rational restructuring as a self-control technique. Behavior Therapy, 5, 247-254.
22.
Goodman. L. A. (1972). A modified multiple regression approach to the analysis of dichotomous variables. American Sociological Review, 37, 28-46.
23.
Goodman, L. A. , & Kruskal, W. H. (1963). Measures of association for cross classification III. Approximate sampling theory. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 310-364.
24.
Haberman, S. J. (1982). Analysis of dispersion of multinomial responses. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 568-580.
25.
Hewitt, J. P. (1984). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
James, W. (1884). What is emotion? Mind, 9, 188-205.
27.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (2 volumes). New York: Holt.
28.
Jammer. M. (1966). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1978). Similarities and differences in social attitudes in four Western countries. International Journal of Psychology, 13, 25-37.
30.
Kerlinger. F. N. , Middendorp, C. P., & Amon, J. (1976). The structure of social attitudes in three countries: Tests of criterial referent theory. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 265-279.
31.
Kilbourne, B. K. (1988). A new application of the foot-in-the-door technique: Friend or stranger? Psychological Reports, 62, 31-36.
32.
Kilbourne, B. K. , Fleck, R., & Teirumniks, M. (1988). Classical versus modern science: Will the real psychology please rise? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA, August.
33.
Kilbourne, B. K. , & Kilbourne, M. T. (1984). Norms of social conduct and the foot-in-the-door. Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 13-20.
34.
Laird, J. D. (1974). Self-attribution of emotion: The effects of expressive behavior on the quality of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 475-486.
35.
Lewin, K. (1936). Some social psychological differences between the United States and Germany. Character and Personality, 4, 265-298.
36.
Lewin. K. (1948). Some social psychological differences between the United States and Germany. In G. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics, 1935, 1946. New York: Harper & Row.
37.
Lin, N. (1976). Foundations of social research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38.
Long. B. H. , Henderson, E. H., Gantcheff, H., & Kastersztein, J. (1972). Self-other orientations of English and French adolescents in Europe and Canada. International. Journal of Psychology, 7, 181-189.
39.
McCall. G. T. , & Simmons, J. L. (1966). Identities and interactions. New York: Free Press.
40.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Meichenbaum. D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press.
42.
Meichenbaum, D. (1983). Coping with stress. London: Century Publishing.
43.
Moscovici, S. . & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence. Part V: Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 270-282.
44.
Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist, ZI, 127-135.
45.
Pais. A. (1982). "Subtle is (lie Lord... "The science and the life of Albert Einstein. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
46.
Sampson. E. (1977). Psychology and the American ideal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,; 35, 767-783.
47.
Sampson. E. (1978). Scientific paradigms and social values: Wanted-a scientific revolution. journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 38, 1332-1343.
48.
Schlenker, B. R. (1981). Impression management: Self concept, social identity, and relations. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.
49.
Scott. M. . & Lyman, L. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 23, 46-62.
50.
Secord P. F. . & Backman, C. W. (1974). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
51.
Snow, C. P. (1981). The physicists: A generation that changed the world. London, England: Macmillan.
52.
Snyder. M. . & Cunningham, M. R. (1975). To comply or not comply: Testing the self-perception explanation of the "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 64-67.
53.
Stryker. S. , & Gottlieb, A. (1981). Attribution theory and symbolic interactionism: A comparison. In J. H. Howes, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in? attribution theory (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
Triandis. H. C. (1987). Individualism and social psychological theory. In C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.). Growth and pr-ogress in cross-cultural psychology. North America: Swets & Zeitlinger B. V./Lisse.
55.
Triandis. H. C. , & Brislin, R. W. (1984). Cross-cultural psychology. American Psychologist, 39. 1006-1016.
56.
Van De Vijver. F. J. R. , & Poortinga, Y. H. (1982). Cross-cultural generalization and universality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 387-408.
