The relative effectiveness of the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face techniques in inducing subjects to comply with a commercial request for information was assessed in a field experiment. Although foot-in-the-door was found to be more effective than door-in-the-face, contrary to expectations the behavioral compliance rate was not significantly different from control outcomes. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernD. J. (1972), “Self Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, BerkowitzL., ed. New York: Academic Press, 1–62.
2.
CannA., ShermanS. J., and ElkesR. (1975), “Effects on Initial Request Size and Timing of a Second Request on Compliance: The Foot-in-the-Door and the Door-in-the-Face,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (May), 774–82.
3.
CialdiniR. B. and AscaniK. (1976), “Test of a Concession Procedure for Inducing Verbal, Behavioral, and Further Compliance With a Request to Donate Blood,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 16 (March), 295–300.
4.
CialdiniR. B., CacioppoJ. T., BassetR., and MillerJ. A. (1978), “The Low-Ball Procedure for Producing Compliance: Commitment Then Cost,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (May), 463–76.
5.
CialdiniR. B., and SchroederD. A. (1976), “Increasing Compliance by Legitimizing Paltry Contributions: When Even a Penny Helps,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (May), 599–604.
6.
CialdiniR. B., VincentJ. E., LewisS. K., CatalanJ., WheelerD., and DarbyB. L. (1975), “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (February), 206–15.
7.
FishbeinM. and AjzenI. (1972), “Attitudes and Opinions,” Annual Review of Psychology, 23, Annual Reviews Inc., 487–544.
8.
FreedmanJ. L. and FrazerS. (1966), “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (October), 195–202.
9.
KanuckL. and BerensonC. (1975), “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (November), 440–53.
10.
KellyH. H. (1973), “The Process of Causal Attribution,” American Psychologist, 28 (February), 107–28.
11.
PlinerP., HartH., KohlJ., and SaariD. (1974), “Compliance Without Pressure: Some Further Data on the Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 (January), 17–22.
12.
ReingenP. H. (1978), “On Inducing Compliance With Requests,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 96–102.
13.
ReingenP. H. and KernanJ. B. (1977), “Compliance with an Interview Request: A Foot-in-the-Door, Self-Perception Interpretation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 365–9.
14.
ScottC. A. (1976), “The Effects of Trial and Incentives on Repeat Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August), 263–9.
15.
ScottC. A. (1977), “A Self Perception Approach to Modifying Socially-Conscious Behavior: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Consumer Resarch, 4 (December), 156–64.
16.
SeligmanC., BushM., and KirschK. (1976), “Relationship Between Compliance in the Foot-in-the-Door Paradigm and Size of First Request,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 (May), 517–20.
17.
SnyderM. and CunninghamM. 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 (January), 64–7.
18.
TyboutA. M. (1978), “The Relative Effectiveness of Three Behavioral Influence Strategies as Supplements to Persuasion in a Marketing Context,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 229–42.
