The relative effectiveness of three influence strategies in gaining acceptance of a new service advocated by either a high or low credibility source was determined. Although the influence strategies did not differ in their overall effectiveness, the optimal strategy varied as a function of level of source credibility. These results were obtained in both personal selling and mass-media-like contexts. The theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronRobert A.“‘The Foot-in-the-Door’ Phenomenon: Mediating Effects of the Size of the First Request,”Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 2(January 1973), 113–4.
2.
BernDaryl J.“Self-Perception Theory,” in BerkowitzL., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.New York: Academic Press, 1972, 1–62.
3.
CialdiniRobert B.“A Test of Two Techniques for Inducing Verbal, Behavioral, and Further Compliance with a Request to Give Blood,” working paper, Arizona State University, in review.
4.
CialdiniRobert B., and CacioppoJ. T., and BassettR.“Throwing the Low-Ball for Charity: A Field Study,” paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, 1974.
5.
CialdiniRobert B, VincentJoyce E., LewisStephen K., and CatalanJose, WheelerDiane, and DarlyBetty Lee. “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(February 1975), 206–15.
6.
FishbeinMartin, and AjzenIcek. “Attitudes and Opinions,”Annual Review of Psychology, 23, Annual Reviews Inc., 1972, 487–544.
7.
FreedmanJonathan L., and FraserScott C.“Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(August 1966), 195–202.
8.
GouldnerA. W.“The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,”American Sociological Review, 25(April 1960), 161–78.
9.
HimmelfarbS., and AraziD.“Choice and Source Attractiveness in Exposure to Discrepant Messages,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(November 1974), 516–27.
10.
HovlandC. I., and WeissW.“The Influence of Source Credibility on Communicator Effectiveness,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(Winter 1951–52), 635–50.
11.
KelleyHarold H.“The Processes of Causal Attribution,”American Psychologist, 28(February 1973), 107–28.
12.
KelmanH. C., and HovlandC. I.“Reinstatement of the Communicator in Delayed Measurement of Opinion Change,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(July 1953), 327–35.
13.
LepperMark R.“Dissonance, Self-Perception, and Honesty in Children,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(January 1973), 65–74.
14.
MillerG. R., and BaseheartJ.“Source Trustworthiness, Opinionated Statements, and Response to Persuasive Communication,”Speech Monographs, 36(March 1969), 1–7.
15.
MillerR. L., and BrickmanP., and BolenD.“Attribution versus Persuasion as a Means for Modifying Behavior,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(March 1975), 430–41.
16.
PlinerPatricia, and HartHeather, KohlJoanne, and SaabiDory. “Compliance Without Pressure: Some Further Data on the Foot-in-the-Door Technique,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(January, 1974), 17–22.
17.
PowellFredrick A.“Source Credibility and Behavioral Compliance as Determinants of Attitude Change,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(November 1965), 669–76.
18.
RaoC. R.Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research.New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1952.
19.
RhineR. J., and SeveranceJ. J.“Ego-Involvement, Discrepancy, Source Credibility, and Attitude Change,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(October 1970), 175–90.
20.
SchulmanG. I., and WorrallC.“Salience Patterns, Source Credibility and the Sleeper Effect,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(November 1970), 371–82.
21.
ScottCarol. “The Effects of Trial and Incentives on Repeat Purchase Behavior,”Journal of Marketing Research, 13(August 1976), 263–9.
22.
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.
23.
SternthalBrian, PhillipsLynn W., and DholakiaRuby R.“The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis,”Public Opinion Quarterly (Summer 1978).
24.
SternthalBrian, ScottCarol A., and DholakiaRuby R.“Sell-Perception as a Means of Personal Influence: Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Meetings, 1975.
25.
TyboutAlice. “The Prediction of Enrollment in a New Health Care Plan,”Northwestern University Working Paper, 1977.
26.
WarrenI.“The Effect of Credibility in Sources of Testimony on Audience Attitudes Toward Speaker and Message,”Speech Monographs, 36(November 1969), 456–8.
27.
WattsW., and McGuireW. J.“Persistence of Induced Opinion Change and Retention of the Inducing Message Contents,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(February 1964), 233–41.
28.
WhittakerJ. O., and MeadeR. D.“Retention of Opinion Change as a Function of Differential Source Credibility,”International Journal of Psychology, 3(Spring 1968), 103–8.
29.
WickerAllen W.“An Examination of the ‘Other Variables’ Explanation of Attitude-Behavior Inconsistency,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(July 1971), 18–30.
