The foot-in-the-door technique, derived from a social-psychological concept which suggests that compliance with a relatively large request is significantly more likely to occur if preceded by compliance with a small request of the same genre, is extended to a marketing research application in the context of a 2X2 factorial design incorporating size of request and incentive. The “foot” phenomenon appears applicable to commercial settings and seems to be accounted for by self-perception theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronR. A. “The Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon: Mediating Effects of Size of First Request and Sex of Requester,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2 (August 1973), 113–4.
2.
BernD. J. “Self-Perception Theory,” inBerkowitzL., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.New York: Academic Press, 1972.
3.
BerdieDouglas R. and AndersonJohn F. “Mail Questionnaire Response Rates: Updating Outmoded Thinking,” Journal of Marketing, 40 (January 1976) 71–3.
4.
CooperSanford L. “Random Sampling by Telephone—An Improved Method,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (November 1964), 45–8.
5.
FreedmanJonathan L. and FrazerScott C. “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (October 1966), 195–202.
6.
KanuckLeslie and BerensonConrad. “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (November 1975), 440–53.
7.
LocanderWilliam B. and BurtonJohn P. “The Effect of Question Form on Gathering Income Data by Telephone,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (May 1976), 189–92.
8.
PlinerPatricia, HartH., KohlJ., and SaariD. “Compliance Without Pressure: Some Further Data on the Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 (January 1974), 17–22.
9.
ScottCarol A. “The Effects of Trial and Incentives on Repeat Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August 1976), 263–9.
10.
SeligmanClive, BushM., and KirschK. “Relationship Between Compliance in the Foot-in-the-Door Paradigm and Size of First Request,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 (May 1976), 517–20.
11.
SnyderMark and CunninghamMichael R. “To Comply or Not Comply: Testing the Self-Perception Explanation of the ‘Foot-in-the-Door’ Phenomenon,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (January 1975), 64–7.
12.
SternthalBrian, ScottC., and DholakiaR. “Self-Perception as a Means of Personal Influence: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” inAndersonB., ed., Advances in Consumer Research.Cincinnati: Association for Consumer Research, 1976.
13.
SudmanSeymour and BradburnNorman M.Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1974.
14.
UranowitzSeymour. “Helping and Self-Attributions: A Field Experiment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (May 1975), 852–4.
15.
WhitmoreWilliam J. “Mail Survey Premiums and Response Bias,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (February 1976), 46–50.
